Perrier v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Perrier v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-01-17
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 35
File numbers
IMM-1531-01
Decision Content
Date: 20020117
Docket: IMM-1531-01
Ottawa, Ontario, the 17th day of January, 2002
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
JEAN EDY PERRIER
ERLINE JEUNE
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision rendered March 21, 2001 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicants are not Convention refugees, is dismissed.
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L
Date: 20020117
Docket: IMM-1531-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 35
Between:
JEAN EDY PERRIER
ERLINE JEUNE
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered March 21, 2001 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicants are not Convention refugees as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicants are married and are citizens of Haiti. They allege they were persecuted in that country because of their membership in a social group, the family.
[3] The Refugee Division refused to recognize the applicants as refugees, concluding that it was not reasonable that they should have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, for the following reasons:
- The applicants returned voluntarily to Haiti after spending fourteen days in Canada in order to attend to their respective occupations as police officers and also to continue their legal studies with a view to possible promotion.
- The applicants could not identify the persecuting officers, and had never seen them.
- The fear of personal vengeance does not constitute a fear of persecution.
[4] First, the applicants both confirm in their testimony that, with other police colleagues, they were "personally" targeted by Mr. Jean Villard Louis owing to their participation in his arrest on May 21, 2000. In this context, I do not think the Refugee Division erred in law in finding that the applicants were not persecuted because of their membership in the patrol at the time of the arrest. Indeed, it is well established that "[t]he fear of personal vengeance is not a fear of persecution." (see Marincas v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (August 23, 1994), IMM-5737-93).
[5] The applicants also criticize the Refugee Division for failing to rule on two items of evidence: exhibit P-21, a complaint report filed by the male claimant with the police station in Croix-des-Bouquets, Haiti; and the documentary evidence in relation to the present situation of police officers in Haiti.
[6] It is trite law that the Refugee Division, as a specialized tribunal, has full jurisdiction to assess and analyze the contents of the documentary evidence. For example, the fact that such evidence is not referred to in its reasons does not invalidate the decision (Hassan v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.)). This principle was upheld by Rouleau J. in Nzuzi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1999] F.C.J. No. 556 (Trial Division) (QL):
The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant; the Board is under no obligation to refer to all items in the documentary evidence it relied upon in arriving to its conclusion.
. . .
. . . There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely or which it might reject.
[7] Also, the Federal Court of Appeal, in Florea v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (QL), held that the panel is presumed to have weighed and considered all of the evidence before it failing proof to the contrary. In light of these principles, I am of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the panel are reasonable and justified in the case at bar.
[8] Finally, to be considered a Convention refugee, the claimant must establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The test for establishing this fear was laid down in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at page 723, by the Supreme Court of Canada:
As has been alluded to above, the test is bipartite: (1) the claimant must subjectively fear persecution; and (2) this fear must be well-founded in an objective sense.
[9] In the case at bar, it was established that prior to their departure for Canada on June 2, 2000, the applicants were aware that their colleagues Abellard and Maxo had been murdered and that Mr. Jean Villard Louis had been released because of his political influence. Furthermore, they had received anonymous death threat calls. Notwithstanding these facts, the applicants returned to Haiti to continue their studies there in the hope of obtaining a promotion. After rereading the transcript and the reasons of the Refugee Division, I must also conclude that the applicants' conduct is not compatible with that of persons who say they fear for their life and are fleeing their country to seek the protection of the Canadian authorities (Huerta v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] F.C.J. No. 271 (F.C.A.) (QL)).
[10] All in all, I am of the opinion that the applicants have not discharged their burden of demonstrating that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division were unreasonable. In my opinion, this panel has discharged its obligations without committing any reviewable error.
[11] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 17, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: IMM-1531-01
STYLE: JEAN EDY PERRIER and ERLINE JEUNE v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 4, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: January 17, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANTS
Barbara Boily FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada