Date: 20040628
Docket: IMM-2479-03
Citation: 2004 FC 887
BETWEEN:
TOMAS HANDZO, EVA HANDZOVA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated March 13, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicants are not Convention refugees as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the Act).
[2] Tomas Handzo and Eva Handzova are citizens of Slovakia who claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Slovakia on the basis of their Roma ethnicity.
[3] The Board concluded that the applicants are not Convention refugees as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Act because it found that their claim was not credible.
[4] First, the Board noted that although Roma are notoriously treated as second-class citizens in Slovakia, the applicants were upper-middle class Roma who had assimilated into Slovak society. Consequently, the Board found that the applicants did not fall within the category of Roma who are normally targeted in Slovakia. The applicants, as assimilated, lived their lives outside the Roma settlements of Slovakia and the Board could therefore reasonably conclude in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the applicants do not have the profile of the Roma who are typically at risk in Slovakia.
[5] Second, the Board found that there was nothing in the applicants' claim which supported their allegation that the attacks against them were racially motivated. Throughout the first hearing, the Board heard the testimony of Mr. Robert Lee and questioned him regarding the applicants' Roma appearance and language skills. The Board was entitled to weigh Mr. Lee's testimony in the way it did. The Board noted during the hearing that Mr. Lee, although an expert on the Roma, had no particular experience regarding the Roma from Slovakia and that he had in fact never been to Slovakia. Consequently, I find that upon a reading of the hearing transcripts the applicants' allegation that the Board ignored Mr. Lee's testimony is entirely unfounded.
[6] The Board further noted that the applicants had failed to provide any corroborative evidence to support the allegations regarding the first attack in 1994. Moreover, the Board noted that the medical report pertaining to the 1995 attack contradicted the applicants' allegations in important ways. In fact, the contradictions noted by the Board seriously call into question the events surrounding the attack of 1995 which lies at the basis of the applicants' allegations. The Board was entitled to reject the medical report and to question the applicants' credibility on the basis of these important contradictions.
[7] The Board retained the lies surrounding the applicants' residence in Ottawa and their extended stay in the USA as indicative of the applicants' willingness to lie to the Board. Although these lies do not go to the heart of the claim, I find that there were ample reasons for the Board to question the applicants' credibility on the basis of the inconsistencies described above. Confronted with these many concerns, the applicants were unable to provide any satisfactory answers.
[8] Finally, the Board noted that the applicants had been to the USA for eighteen months immediately following the alleged attacks and that, after their extended trip to the USA, they returned to Slovakia. In Skretyuk v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 783 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), Dubé J. stated that the Board must take into consideration the applicants' conduct when they fail to claim refugee status in a country that is a signatory to the Convention. Indeed, the applicants must claim refugee status as soon as possible, or the claim may not be considered serious (see Ilie v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1758 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). The fact that immediately after the alleged attacks, the applicants found themselves in the USA for eighteen months and never claimed refugee status does call into question the credibility of their fear of persecution. Additionally, the fact that the applicants returned to Slovakia after their stay in the USA suggests that the alleged attacks did not give rise to a legitimate subjective fear of persecution. It is important to recall that the applicants also waited five months before claiming refugee status after their arrival in Canada. It is a well established principle that a delay in the filing of a refugee claim can have a negative impact on the credibility assessment of the applicant's subjective fear of persecution because it is recognized that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution would claim refugee status as soon as is practicably possible. In this case, the applicants waited five months before filing their application and the Board was entitled to consider this delay in its evaluation of the applicants' subjective fear of persecution.
[9] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 28, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2479-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: TOMAS HANDZO, EVA HANDZOVA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 25, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 28, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Amina Sherazee FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Marcel Larouche FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rocco Galati FOR THE APPLICANTS
Galati, Rodrigues, Azevedo & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario