Date: 19990625
Docket: IMM-4041-98
Between:
GISSELLE JIMENEZ MORA
JULIO ALEJANDRO QUESADA JIMENEZ
Applicants
And:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU J.
1 This is an application for leave and judicial review pursuant to section 82.1 of the Immigration Act (the Act), against the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated July 16, 1998, which determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
2 The applicant was born on February 10, 1967 and is a citizen of Costa Rica.
3 She arrived in Canada on September 13, 1997, with her son, and claimed refugee status, claiming to fear for her safety and that of her child in Costa Rica. Her claim was rejected on July 27, 1998.
4 The applicant states that she moved in with Julio Quesada Pleites, her partner, in February 1994. Their son was born on August 31, 1994. She alleges that her partner physically and psychologically abused her and their son.
5 On March 15, 1995, her spouse was imprisoned and the applicant claims that this was when she learned of his criminal record. She alleges that even in prison, he continued to monitor and threaten her; however, it appears that she continued to visit him.
6 The applicant submits that in 1997, she received anonymous telephone calls from the prison at her home advising her that she and her son were being watched. She states that she reported these calls to the local police but they required more evidence.
7 In November 1996, the applicant sought psychological assistance from the CEFEMINA crisis centre to deal with her fear of her partner.
8 The applicant states that in September 1997, her partner notified her by telephone that he would soon be released from prison. She decided then to leave the country with her son.
9 According to the applicant, a lawyer advised her of her legal obligation to obtain the signature of the child's father confirming that he consented to his son leaving the country. However, a friend forged her partner's signature and she gave the document to the lawyer. She left the country on September 10, 1997.
10 She claims that three months after she arrived in Canada, she learned that her partner, who had been released from prison, had been to look for her at her parents' home.
11 According to the Refugee Division, the applicants did not discharge the burden of establishing the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution. It took the view that they did not prove that their subjective fear was well-founded. The panel based its decision on recent documentary evidence and determined that the Costa Rican authorities had taken steps to combat discrimination, harassment and violence against women. According to the Refugee Division, the situation of women in Costa Rica has significantly improved over the last few years. With respect to the forged signature and thus the kidnapping of the child, the panel found that such actions contravene a provision of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. For all of these reasons, the Refugee Division rejected the applicants' claim for refugee status.
12 In my view, the Refugee Division's conclusion that the applicants' fear was not well-founded seems reasonable. The panel appears to have properly considered, analysed and interpreted all of the oral and documentary evidence before it.
13 The fact that the applicant was physically and psychologically abused does not constitute persecution within the meaning of the Convention. However, even if I were to find that the applicants have a subjective fear, it would be difficult, in light of the documentary evidence, to conclude that this subjective fear has an objective basis. The evidence indicates the significant improvement in the situation of women in Costa Rica and the authorities' efforts to protect them from family violence. While the panel did not raise doubts about the female applicant's credibility, it seems to have properly concluded, in light of the objective situation in Costa Rica, that there is no risk of persecution for the applicants if they were to return to their country of origin.
14 I do not have to rule on the issue of exclusion.
15 The application is dismissed.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 25, 1999
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-4041-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: GISSELLE JIMENEZ MORA
JULIO ALEJANDRO QUESADA JIMENEZ
- AND -
THE MINISTER
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 23, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU J.
DATED JUNE 23, 1999
APPEARANCES:
JORGE COLASURDO
FOR THE APPLICANTS
CHRISTINE BERNARD
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JORGE COLASURDO
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
FOR THE APPLICANTS
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA