Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030509

Docket: IMM-2413-02

Citation: 2003 FCT 569

BETWEEN:

                                    

                              Javier LONDONO

                          Maria Cristina ROJAS

                     Raquel Cristina BELTRAN ROJAS

                       Karla Paola BELTRAN ROJAS

                                                               Applicants

                                    

AND:

             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                               Respondent

                          REASONS FOR ORDER

ROULEAU, J.

[1]                 This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention and Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration Review Board dated May 10, 2002 wherein it was determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees. The applicants now seek an order setting aside that deciion and ask for a rehearing before a newly constituted tribunal.

[2]                 The female applicant, Maria Cristina Rojas, her two infant children, Raquel Cristina Beltran Rojas and Karla Paola Beltran Rojas, and her common law husband, Javier Londono, are all citizens of Columbia. Mr. Londono was a detective with the security force in Leticia which was approximately ½ hour flying time outside the area of residence of Mrs. Rojas and her family.

[3]                 The female applicant had been working for a social services agency whose principal objective was care of the poor and those displaced by the revolution. She alleges threats by revolutionary armed personnel which had threatened her death unless she discontinued her benevolent activities. These events occurred in April, 2001. In May, 2001, the applicant maintains that she was harassed by three unknown individuals who told her to leave her employment. She then, along with her two daughters, went to join her common law husband in Bogota. On June 10, 2001, the four applicants flew to Orlando, Florida, USA, and on July 11, 2001 they entered Canada and claimed refugee status.

[4]                 A hearing was held before the Board in Montreal in April, 2002 and a decision was rendered on May 6, 2002 in which it was determined the applicants were not Convention refugees. The Board concluded that the applicants' claim was not credible on the basis of numerous omissions of facts which were raised during the hearing but which were not contained in the applicants' Personal Information Forms (PIF).

[5]                 As argued by counsel for the Minister, it was incumbent on the applicants to include facts in their PIF which are central to the claim. It was argued by the female applicant that by reference she should be able to include the allegations contained in her common law husband's PIF. This was rejected outright by the tribunal since their claim for refugee status rested on separate and distinct grounds.

[6]                 The Board noted, and I do not disagree, that omissions in the female applicant's PIF surrounding the incidents of threats and harassment and which are central to her claim constitute major contradictions.

[7]                 Counsel for the applicants also raised the issue of the female applicant's brother having been granted refugee status in Canada.

[8]                 The jurisprudence is clear that the Board must consider each case independently and grant little weight to the results of previous refugee claims by members of the same family.

[9]                 The applicants complain that the Board's finding that it was inconsistent for people who feared retribution in their country of origin to fail to make a claim for refugee status while spending approximately 30 days in Orlando, Florida, is irrelevant to the issue which was before the panel. However, I am satisfied that this was not a major determining factor in the Board's decision but merely an observation on its part.


[10]            The Board having failed to accept Mrs. Rojas' claim due to lack of credibility, it was not unreasonable for it to also dismiss the claims of the applicant children.

[11]            With respect to Mr. Londono's claim, the Board concluded that it was unreasonable for him to return to Columbia instead of having Mrs. Rojas and the two children come to him in Brazil where he had sought refuge after leaving the security force in Columbia. That was a conclusion entirely open to the Board to make.

[12]            In my view, there is no basis for setting aside the impugned decision. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

     JUDGE

OTTAWA, Ontario

May 9, 2003


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

                                                                                   

DOCKET :                                            IMM-2413-02

STYLE OF CAUSE :                          JAVIER LONDONO ET AL v. MCI

PLACE OF HEARING :                    Montreal

DATE OF HEARING :                      May 1st, 2003

DATE OF REASONS :                      May 9th, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Me Diane N. Doray                                                                        FOR THE APPLICANTS

Mlle Ella Lokrou, Stagiaire

Me Michel Synnott                                                                         FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Me Diane N. Doray                                 

6855, rue de l'Épée                                FOR THE APPLICANTS

Suite 203

Montreal, Quebec

H3N 2C7                                                                                       

MORRIS ROSENBERG                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

Ministère fédéral de la justice                                                        

Complexe Guy-Favreau

200 ouest, Boul. René- Lévesque

Tour Est, 5e étage

Montréal, Québec

H2Z 1X4                                                                                        

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.