Vancouver, British Columbia, November 10, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
ELENOA MERESIANA VUKIDONU TIKO
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The applicants are a married couple, who are citizens of Fiji. They alleged that they face persecution in that country by virtue of the fact that Mr. Tiko is of mixed Chinese and ethnic Fijian ancestry. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their applications for refugee protection, finding Mr. Tiko’s claim to have been targeted by ethnic Fijians because of his partial Chinese ethnicity not to be credible. Moreover, the Board found that, in any event, adequate state protection was available to the couple in Fiji.
[2] The applicants then sought a Pre-removal Risk Assessment (or PRRA), alleging the same risk that had been asserted before the Refugee Protection Division. This is an application for judicial review of the negative PRRA decision.
Did the PRRA Officer Ignore Relevant Evidence?
[3] The applicants assert that the PRRA officer ignored, or read selectively, two newspaper articles that allegedly establish that Chinese farmers were being targeted by ethnic Fijians, and that the police were unable or unwilling to assist them.
[4] A review of the PRRA officer’s decision discloses that the officer made specific reference to one of the articles in his analysis, noting that the article referred to incidents of violence against a specific group of Chinese farmers, and not to the Chinese community in general.
[5] The officer also noted that the article demonstrated a willingness on the part of the Fijian police authorities to work with the Chinese community to assist the victims.
[6] A review of the officer’s analysis discloses that the officer clearly weighed the evidence contained in the newspaper article, along with all of the other evidence relating to country conditions within Fiji for the ethnic Chinese, and found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a general pattern of violence against, and persecution of, the Chinese minority. As a consequence, I am not persuaded that the officer erred in his treatment of this evidence.
[7] While the officer did not make specific reference to the second newspaper article in his decision, the content of the second article is very similar to the article that was discussed in the officer’s analysis. As a result, the failure of the officer to make explicit reference to the second article is not material.
The Affidavit from the Village Elder
[8] The applicants also submit that the PRRA officer failed to properly consider the contents of an affidavit from an elder in their village, which, they say, confirms that they face a risk of persecution based on Mr. Tiko’s partial Chinese ethnicity, should they return to Fiji.
[9] Once again, a review of the officer’s decision reveals that the officer specifically referred to and considered the affidavit, and concluded that it was of limited probative value. The officer gave a clear explanation as to why he found the affidavit to be of limited assistance, notably because it failed to demonstrate any specific threat to the applicants. The PRRA officer’s explanation on this point was entirely reasonable.
[10] What the applicants are really asking is to have the Court re-weigh this evidence. That is not the task for the Court on judicial review: (see Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
The Officer’s Consideration of the Situation of the Applicants’ Relatives
[11] Finally, the applicants say that the officer erred in concluding that they were not at risk, based on the fact that their relatives, including their three adult children, have been able to continue to live in Fiji, without any significant problems.
[12] The applicants say that they are at risk because of the fact that they are wealthy landowners and farmers, and because ethnic Fijians resent non-ethnic Fijians owning land. None of the relatives referred to by the officer are land-owning farmers, and thus the fact that they have been able to continue to live in Fiji without significant problems is therefore not relevant to the risk faced by the applicants themselves.
[13] The officer’s comments with respect to the applicants’ relatives must be read in context. The comments follow the officer’s observation that the country condition information does not establish a systemic or societal persecution of Fijians of Chinese origin, and that there was a distinct absence of objective country condition information indicating that the Chinese community was under threat in Fiji. It was in this context that the officer made his comments regarding the fact that the applicants’ relatives had been able to continue to live in Fiji without any apparent problems.
[14] Read in context, the officer’s comments were entirely reasonable. Moreover, elsewhere in the decision, the officer clearly turned his mind to the specific profile of the applicants in determining that the evidence did not establish that they did faced a serious possibility of risk should they return to Fiji.
Conclusion
[15] As a consequence, I am not persuaded that the PRRA officer erred as alleged by the applicants. Moreover, I am satisfied that when the decision is read as a whole, it was reasonable. As a result, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[16] Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2133-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: JIOJI NIULEVU TIKO et al v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: November 9, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Lawrence Leung
|
|
|
Liliane Bantourakis
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
MR. LAWRENCE LEUNG Barrister & Solicitor Surrey, BC
|
|
|
MR. JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice (Vancouver)
|