Toronto, Ontario, March 23, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein
BETWEEN:
ESTELA MARIA BRANGE DE RADONIC
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for clarification and precision)
[1] In 1958, the Applicants fled from Yugoslavia and were accepted as refugees in Italy. They then relocated to Argentina in 1960 and became citizens of Argentina. The principal Applicant joined the Union Civica Radical political party. He alleges that he suffered persecution from the ruling Justicialista Party since 1984. After a series of intimidations, beatings, and threatening phone calls, he went into hiding and finally fled to Canada.
[2] The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) rejected the Applicant's claim by finding them not credible and that they failed to establish either a subjective or an objective fear of persecution.
[3] The Applicants argue that the Board erred by:
a. misapplying the evidence;
b. engaging in speculation that memory loss by the Applicant means he will no longer be a target; and
c. making an error in law by asking the Applicant to prove that the various acts of intimidation against him were interconnected.
[4] Even if I were to accept the Applicants' contention on all three points, which I do not, I would still have to reject this application due to the Board's findings of re-availment and state protection.
[5] The Board found that during several trips to Italy and Canada, the principal Applicant could, but did not, avail himself of the opportunity to claim refugee status and instead returned to Argentina each time. The Applicants only contention was that he was still healthy enough to fight his enemies. However, now that he has health problems he cannot continue the fight. This to my mind indicates only that he is involved in the political struggles of Argentina and belies any fears of persecution or need for protection. The Board's finding regarding re-availment is unassailable.
[6] As far as a lack of state protection is concerned, the Applicant produced a complaint he had registered with the police but which was subsequently dismissed for lack of evidence. This is not too surprising as he reported telephone threats by parties unknown. He also advised the Board that a friend in the police later advised him that nothing further could be done to protect him and suggested that the Applicants leave the country.
[7] This is not enough to rebut the presumption of state protection. The documentary evidence indicates that state protection is available in Argentina. Mere reporting to police and demonstrating that such efforts were unsuccessful is not enough to rebut the presumption (see Kadenko v. Canada(Solicitor General) (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532). The Applicant failed to establish a) that he actively but unsuccessfully sought state protection and b) the reasons why the documentary evidence could not be trusted and relied upon.
[8] Accordingly, this application cannot succeed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3074-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: NIKO RADONIC, ESTELA MARIA BRANGE DE RADONIC v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: March 22, 2006
AND ORDER BY: von Finckenstein J.
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Luis Antonio Monroy |
|
| Ms. Amy Lambiris |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Luis Antonio Monroy |
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|