Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20040608

Docket: IMM-4679-03

Citation:2004 FC 821

Toronto, Ontario, June 8^th, 2004

Present:           The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley                                   

BETWEEN:

                                                               AMIT BACCHUS

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

(Delivered Orally from the Bench:Written for Clarification)

[1]                Mr. Amit Bacchus sought judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the "Board") which determined that Mr. Bacchus was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed the application and gave brief oral reasons for why I saw no reason to interfere with the Board's decision.

BACKGROUND

[2]                Amit Bacchus is a 21 year old citizen of Guyana. He claimed refugee status on the basis of his race (Indo-Guyanese), political opinion, and risk to life based on criminality.

[3]                The applicant alleged that he was harassed by members of the People's National Congress (PNC) because his family supports another political party, the People's Progressive Party (PPP). The applicant's mother is active in the PPP, for which she organized meetings, supplied food and chairs from her chair rental business.

[4]                Mr. Bacchus cited several instances in which he was the victim or intended victim of crimes perpetrated by members of the Afro-Guyanese community. One example on which he relied to explain his fear of that community is the attempted theft of his mother's car from their home, in which her four Doberman guard dogs were poisoned. On another occasion he was robbed, beaten and left unconscious by the roadside on his way home from school. After each incident the applicant reported the crimes to the police, however, no action was taken, mainly because the applicant and his family could not identify the perpetrators.

The Board's Decision

[5]                The Board found that serious crime is a problem in Guyana, and affects all citizens of the country. Although many of the victims of crime are members of the Indo-Guyanese community, their disproportionate victimization is attributed to their generally greater affluence than that of other Guyanese rather than to their race. The Board therefore found that the risk of harm faced by the applicant is one faced generally by others in his country.

[6]                The Board furthermore found that the applicant's claim of no state protection was not credible. It was clear from the documentary evidence that the police in Guyana do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation or race in their handling of complaints. The Board attributed the police's lack of action in the applicant's case to the fact that he could not identify the perpetrators of the crimes. Finally, the Board noted that the PPP is in power and thus, it was unlikely that there would be no state protection available to the applicant.

[7]                An unfortunate error occurred in the communication of the Board's decision to the applicant. The first notice he received dated May 27, 2003 indicated that he had been found to be a Convention refugee. That was quickly replaced by an amended notice that accorded with the actual decision dated May 26, 2003.

ISSUE

[8]                Did the Board err in determining that the applicant had not been persecuted on the basis of race and political opinion and that he did not face a personalized risk?

PARTIES' POSITIONS and ANALYSIS

[9]                The applicant argued that the Board failed to give weight to the current political turmoil in Guyana which is as a result of the rivalry between Afro and Indo-Guyanese. Furthermore, the Board erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the evidence that a disproportionate number of victims of violence in Guyana are Indo-Guyanese. Finally, the applicant submits that the Board erred in determining that economic motivation causes the violence against Indo-Guyanese, rather than race and politics.

[10]            The respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Board's reasons are clear, cogent and comprehensive, and that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Board erred in determining that he is not a Convention refuge or a person in need of protection.

[11]            I agree with the respondent. The documentary evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that crime, while a serious issue in Guyana, is neither politically nor racially motivated. As well, although the applicant has been the victim of violent crime, all Guyanese are at risk for these sorts of crimes. The Board had ample reason to conclude that the applicant was neither persecuted on the basis of race or political opinion nor would he face a personalized risk were he to return to Guyana.

[12]            Moreover, the Board was entitled to weigh and prefer the documentary evidence that indicated that the authorities do not discriminate in protecting Indo-Guyanese and find that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection given the fact that the Guyanese government has effective control of its territory and makes serious efforts to protect its citizens, Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.), over the allegations of discrimination in protection put forward by the applicant.

[13]            While I sympathize with the applicant for the emotional turmoil he must have experienced as a result of receiving an erroneous notice of decision from the Board, that administrative error does not provide a ground for the Court's intervention.

                                                                       ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS this application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.

"Richard G. Mosley"

                                                                                                                                                   J.F.C.                    

                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-4679-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          AMIT BACCHUS

                                                                                                                                              Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      JUNE 8, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER:               MOSLEY J.

DATED:                                             JUNE 8, 2004

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                                               

                               FEDERAL COURT

                                TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20040608

Docket: IMM-4679-03

BETWEEN:

AMIT BACCHUS

                                                     Applicant

        

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                             Respondent

                                                                      

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER