Date: 20050113
Docket: IMM-1846-04
Citation: 2005 FC 30
Toronto, Ontario, January 13th, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
BETWEEN:
TIBOR BONCIDAI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an Application for Judicial Review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") dated February 6, 2004 in which the applicant was found not to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
FACTS
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Romania and Hungary, claims a well-founded fear of persecution in Hungary on the basis of his Roma ethnicity. He was born in Romania but later moved to Hungary where he was accepted as a refugee claimant and granted citizenship. The basis of the applicant's claim is that he was dismissed from his employment and was threatened by neo-nazi sympathizers on account of his ethnicity.
[3] The Board rejected the applicant's claim for several reasons. First, it concluded that there were serious credibility concerns with his evidence. Although the applicant claimed to be of Romani heritage, he had virtually no knowledge of Romani culture, traditions or dialect and he did not possess any of the somatic features generally attributed to persons of Romani heritage. Moreover, he made no reference in his Personal Information Form to the fact that he had been threatened by neo-nazi sympathizers and he could not provide a reasonable explanation as to why he had delayed fifteen months in making a refugee claim after arriving in Canada.
[4] The Board went on to conclude that even if the applicant had been credible, the incidents that formed the basis of his refugee claim would not amount to persecution, either singularly or cumulatively.
[5] Finally, the Board found that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection. It noted that Hungary has a parliamentary democracy and that the government has implemented a number of legislative and institutional measures to protect the rights of minorities, such as Romas. Moreover, the applicant did not attempt to seek the assistance of authorities.
ANALYSIS
[6] The applicant challenges the Board's finding that he is not of Romani heritage. He submits that there is no typical profile of a Roma and that the Board erred in relying on his physical features or lack of knowledge of Romani culture to impugn his credibility. I agree that the Board should be not rely on stereotypical profiles of a Roma, including physical characteristics.
[7] Aside from the issue of ethnicity, the Board provided adequate reasons to support its negative credibility finding including the applicant's fifteen month delay in making a refugee claim, a significant omission from his Personal Information Form, and his failure to explain how his loss of employment after five years related to his ethnicity.
[8] Even if the credibility finding was patently unreasonable, which it is not, the Board's finding that there is adequate state protection for Roma in Hungry is not patently unreasonable. The documentary evidence before the Board demonstrates that the government and the police are making a concerted effort to provide protection for Roma from abuse, persecution and discrimination. At the same time, the documentary evidence demonstrates that the living conditions for the Roma in Hungry are far below the national average, that there are several instances each year of police abuse toward Roma, that there are several instances each year of violence toward Roma by groups such as skin heads and neo-nazis, and there is widespread discrimination by many Hungarians against the Roma. Having said that, these poor living conditions, instances of police abuse, violence, and general discrimination, do not amount to persecution. This issue has been considered and dealt with by this Court on many occasions.
[9] For these reasons, this Application for Judicial Review must be dismissed.
[10] Neither Counsel proposed any question of general importance for certification. The Court agrees and no question is certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
The Application for Judicial Review of the Board's decision dated February 6th, 2004 is dismissed.
"Michael A. Kelen"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: TIBOR BONCIDAI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 11, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Robin Seligman FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Brad Gotkin FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Robin Seligman
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FEDERAL COURT
Docket: IMM-1846-04
BETWEEN:
TIBOR BONCIDAI
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
|