Dunkova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Dunkova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2013-11-07
Neutral citation
2013 FC 1133
File numbers
IMM-9543-12
Decision Content
Date: 20131107
Docket: IMM-9543-12
Citation: 2013 FC 1133
Toronto, Ontario, November 7, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
ZDENA DUNKOVA,
KLARA DUNKOVA,
JAROSLAV DUNKA,
NATALIJA DUNKOVA,
DAVID DUNKA,
JAROSLAV DUNKA,
DOMINIK DUNKA
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered orally on November 6, 2013)
[1] This application for judicial review concerns a Roma family from the Czech Republic (the Applicants) whose claims for refugee status and protection were denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) in a decision dated August 20, 2012 (the Decision).
[2] The Board had credibility concerns and concluded that the Applicants had not experienced past persecution. However, the Board acknowledged that Roma individuals have been the victims of persecution and the Board therefore considered whether the Czech Republic offers adequate state protection to Roma people at the operational level. The Board denied the Applicants’ claim because it found that such state protection is available.
[3] For the reasons to follow this application will be dismissed.
[4] The Applicants raises three issues. I will deal with them in turn.
Issue #1
[5] Is the Decision unreasonable because the Board failed to deal fairly with evidence it acknowledged was mixed?
[6] Counsel for the Applicants provided several illustrations to support this submission but, in my view, the Board’s conclusions about the documentary evidence were within the range of permissible outcomes. Accordingly, I did not call on counsel for the Respondent to address this issue.
Issue #2
[7] Is the Decision internally inconsistent because it concludes that Roma people are currently being persecuted but also concludes that state protection is adequate?
[8] In my view, notwithstanding several poorly written passages, the Decision is reasonable when read as a whole, because it shows that the Board’s view is that persecution is not a present concern and that state protection is adequate.
Issue #3
[9] Did the Board err in failing to consider a response to information request dated March 10, 2011 which was the most recent relevant document from the Board’s own research and which described ongoing persecution of Roma people in the period 2009-2011?
[10] I have concluded that this issue is resolved by the presumption that the Board has considered all the evidence.
Certification
[11] There is no question for certification under section 79 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (S.C. 2001, c.27).
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that for these reasons the application is hereby dismissed.
“Sandra J. Simpson”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket:
IMM-9543-12
STYLE OF CAUSE:
ZDENA DUNKOVA, KLARA DUNKOVA, JAROSLAV DUNKA, NATALIJA DUNKOVA, DAVID DUNKA,
JAROSLAV DUNKA, DOMINIK DUNKA V THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
NOVEMBER 6, 2013
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER:
SIMPSON J.
DATED:
NOVEMBER 7, 2013
APPEARANCES:
Georges J. Kubes
For The Applicants
Leila Jawando
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Georges J. Kubes
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
For The Applicants
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent