Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20061123

Docket: IMM-899-06

Citation: 2006 FC 1400

Ottawa, Ontario, November 23, 2006

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

BETWEEN:

MARIA DUCEAC

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]               Ms. Maria Duceac is a citizen of Israel and a former resident of Romania. She arrived in Canada in 2005 and claimed refugee protection on the basis that she had been harassed and mistreated by immigration police in Israel. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board heard and dismissed her claim because it was satisfied that she could have obtained state protection in Israel.

[2]               Ms. Duceac argues that the Board erred in finding that state protection was available to her. She also submits that the Board erred in failing to consider whether she was entitled to return to Romania. I can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.

I.        Issues

1. Did the Board err in finding that state protection was available to Ms. Duceac in Israel?
   
   
2. Did the Board err in failing to consider whether Ms. Duceac was entitled to return to Romania?
   
   

II.     Analysis

[3]               I can overturn the Board’s decision only if I find that it was out of keeping with the evidence before it, or if it made an error of law.

1.  Did the Board err in finding that state protection was available to Ms. Duceac in Israel?

[4]               The Board found that immigrants to Israel sometimes face harassment and discrimination, particularly on religious grounds. It accepted that Ms. Duceac, as a Christian, may have experienced problems in the workplace. It also accepted Ms. Duceac’s account of having been arrested, detained and assaulted by immigration police in Israel. However, the Board found that she had made insufficient efforts to obtain available state protection.

[5]               Ms. Duceac stated that she required medical treatment after her encounter with the immigration police. Immediately thereafter, she made a complaint to the police complaints bureau, called Mahash. She was advised to make a written complaint but, instead, recounted her story orally at the Mahash office. In turn, she received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her that her complaint had been investigated but would not result in any proceedings in the Criminal Court. She was told that she could appeal that decision. She did not. Rather, she decided to come to Canada.

[6]               In concluding that state protection was available to Ms. Duceac, the Board noted the following:

·        Israel is a parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary;

·        many human rights groups and non-governmental organizations operate freely in Israel;

·        Israel imposes disciplinary sanctions on police officers who mistreat citizens;

·        a parliamentary committee is investigating excesses by the immigration police; and

·        several organizations could have assisted Ms. Duceac in pursuing her complaint or her appeal.

[7]               The Board concluded that Ms. Duceac had not taken reasonable steps to obtain the state protection that was available to her. Based on the evidence before it, I cannot conclude that the Board’s decision was unreasonable.

2.  Did the Board err in failing to consider whether Ms. Duceac was entitled to return to Romania?

[8]               The Board stated that, having found that Ms. Duceac would not face persecution in Israel and could return there, it was unnecessary to consider whether she was entitled to return to Romania. Ms. Duceac argues that the Board had a duty to consider her claim against both countries. I disagree.

[9]               Once the Board concluded that Ms. Duceac could return to Israel, it was unnecessary for it to decide whether she could return to Romania. On the other hand, if she had established her refugee claim against Israel, the Board would have had to go on to consider whether she could live in Romania: El Rafih v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 831, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1036 (T.D.) (QL).

[10]           Accordingly, I can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Counsel for Ms. Duceac proposed a question for certification on the second issue but, in my view, it does not involve a matter of general importance and I decline to state it.

JUDGMENT

            THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS that:

1.                  The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.                  No question of general importance is stated.

“James W. O’Reilly”

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-899-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          DUCEAC v. MCI

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                      November 14, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 AND JUDGMENT:                         O’REILLY J.

DATED:                                             November 23, 2006

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: