Londono v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Londono v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-05-09
Neutral citation
2003 FCT 569
File numbers
IMM-2413-02
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