Date: 20001102
Docket: IMM-80-00
BETWEEN:
ALEKSANDRE KASYAN,
ALLA MANUKOVA,
ALEX KASYAN,
PLORA KASYAN,
Plaintiffs
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] Though argued in the French language and the decision of the Refugee Board was also written in French, these reasons are drafted in English because the applicants chose to submit their affidavit evidence in English; as well, counsel's briefs were submitted in English.
[2] This application is for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, of the Immigration and Refugee Board (hereinafter "the Board"), dated December 13, 1999, in file numbers M99--04080, M99-04081, M99-04082 and M99-04083, whereby it found Aleksandre Kasyan, Alla Kasyan, Alex Kasyan and Plora Kasyan (hereinafter "the Applicants") not to be Convention Refugees.
[3] The Applicants are citizens of Georgia. They allege a well-founded fear of persecution based on their Armenian nationality and their membership to a particular social group.
[4] On December 6, 1998, the Applicants allege that they took part in an exhibition dedicated to the history of the region at the Central Palace of Culture of Akhalkalay, where they put on display a collection of rare stones and a map of minerals of the Akhalkalay region, as well as albums, old photographs and articles written in the Armenian language.
[5] The Applicants allege that Governor Baramidze after having looked at the articles written in the Armenian language asked "What is written here?". The female Applicant "answered that it was an article about her father and his works published in Armenia. [She] added also that the pantheon of famous Armenians who used to live in Georgia was built in Tbilisi with big efforts from her father."
[6] The Governor shouted "Shut up, stupid! I won't let you to continue the hostile propaganda." The Applicants allege that "he threw down off the table all [their] exhibits and then kicked one of the albums with such force that it hit [the female Applicant's] leg. The Governor also allegedly looked at them and said "You will regret about it."
[7] The Applicants claim that, because of the Governor's hidden agenda, on their way home from the exhibition a police jeep blocked half of the road. The policeman told them to turn right and make a detour, though another car was allowed to go ahead. A few minutes later, they saw a vehicle containing four men. Two men, with black sticks, allegedly got out of the vehicle and approached them. They inflicted injury on the male Applicant and his brother who both received medical attention. The male Applicant's brother was admitted to the hospital for a period of two weeks. The police were informed of the incident but took no action.
[8] The Applicants claim that two weeks later, the male Applicant's aunt's house was burnt down.
[9] The Applicants allege that the male Applicant's brother was shot by one of the aggressors involved in the December 6, 1998 incident.
[10] The Applicants claim that on January 6, 1999 four policemen searched their apartment and confiscated all their books, photo-albums and documents, including personal letters.
[11] On February 14, 1999, their daughter was harassed by her friend's cousin and his friend. She was forced into a bedroom with the cousin where she slapped him in the face.
[12] On March 10, 1999, their daughter was allegedly pushed against a wall and slapped in the face by the same man and a few of his friends. Her blouse was alleged pulled until it unbuttoned. The daughter lost consciousness. The police were not informed of the incident.
[13] The Applicants claim that on March 20, 1999, their son was insulted, pushed around and hit by a group of seven males. The son escaped by entering a theatre. The group followed, however an Armenian woman came to his help. The males allegedly said "You just step out, Armenian rat, and we will count your teeth".
[14] It is alleged that on May 12, 1999, the police arrested the male Applicant; that he was beaten, interrogated and subsequently released.
[15] The Applicants arrived in Canada on May 27, 1999 and made refugee claims the same day.
[16] The Board determined that the Applicants were not Convention Refugees because they lacked credibility and they did not satisfy them as to an objective basis for their fear of persecution.
[17] The Board had concerns about credibility. The Board determined that although the Applicants claimed that they feared persecution because of their attempt to promote Armenian culture, Exhibit A-4 indicates that the Georgian government "allows instruction in non Georgian languages". In addition, the Board cites the following: "[...] high degree of cultural freedom afforded to Armenians in Georgia, pointing to a presidential decree easing restrictions on the use of the Armenian language in the official documentation. [...]".
[18] The Board found that language is a cultural vehicle; by allowing it to be taught and to authorize its dissemination, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the Georgian State is opposed to Armenian culture and that an exhibition of photos would anger the Government. The Board found no link between the incidents at the exhibition and the alleged attack on December 6.
[19] The Board did not accept that the Georgian State persecuted minority Armenians nor that the documentary evidence support the allegation.
[20] The Board concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that the Applicants had a reasonable possibility ["possibilité raisonnable"] of being persecuted.
[21] The Applicants submit that the Board completely ignored vital extracts of the documentary evidence filed by the Applicants at the hearing. In particular, they submit that the Board ignored the document from the Helsinki Association. The Applicants contend that the Board's refusal to consider this document amounts to a refusal to exercise their jurisdiction according to law.
[22] The Applicants argue that the Board erred in law when it concluded that Armenians are not persecuted in Georgia because the Georgian Government allowed the diffusion of information in the Armenian language.
[23] The Applicants further submit that the Board erred in concluding that the evidence did not prove the implication of the Georgian Government in the persecutorial acts committed against them.
[24] The Respondent submits that, based on the evidence, it was open to the Board to conclude that the Applicants were not credible.
[25] The Respondent contends that the Applicants did not rebut the presumption that the Board failed to take into consideration all the evidence; that not mentioning all the documentary evidence does not overturn this presumption; that the Board has no obligation to comment on every piece of evidence before it.
[26] This Court has consistently held that a finding of a lack of credibility made by the Board is part of its discretionary powers; where such findings are made, this Court should not interfere (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). The Court should not interfere with the decision of the Board when the evidence, taken as a whole, supports the negative assessment of credibility, and if the Board's findings are reasonable; (Larue v.M.E.I. [1993] F.C.J. No. 484). When a decision is made on an assessment of credibility, it is not the role of the Court to substitute its decision for that of the Board even if the Court might not have reached the same conclusion.
[27] The Board's determination that the Applicants are not Convention Refugees appears to be reasonable and it would be difficult to conclude that their findings of fact were capricious or perverse. It sets out examples of implausibilities and problems in the Applicants' evidence. It was entirely reasonable for the Board to conclude that it was implausible for the Applicants to fear persecution because of the simple fact that they participated in an exhibition.
[28] Furthermore, the Board does not seem to have erred in considering the documentary evidence before it. Although it did not comment on all of the documents before it, there is no conclusive evidence that it omitted to consider all of them before choosing that which it considered to be most relevant to the specific facts of this case. The intervention of this Court is not warranted unless the conclusion reached appears to be capricious or unreasonable. In particular, the Applicants allege that the Board failed to consider Exhibit P-22. A reading of this "Report" prepared by the Helsinki Association in Yerevan, Armenia, leads me to believe that it was prepared by an advocacy group. Although it does not state it expressly, the Board gave more weight to independent sources.
[29] A reading of the entire Record, and in particular the transcript of the hearing, clearly demonstrates that the Applicants failed to adduce any evidence oral or documentary to prove their claims. As discussed by the Board, the Applicants make allegations of incidents but provide little or no proof to link these alleged incidents to their fear of persecution.
[30] I can perceive no link between the fact that Armenians are seeking an independent state in the region and any alleged persecution.
[31] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
November 2, 2000