Date: 20010220
Docket: IMM-3215-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 101
BETWEEN:
MARIAN STANCULESCU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
CAMPBELL, J.
[1] In the present case, the Applicant is Roma from Romania who claims a well-founded fear of persecution by state authorities. In rejecting the Applicant's claim for refugee status, the CRDD made the following findings:
| Documentary evidence [Exhibit R-2, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1999, U.S. Department of State, February 2000, at page 16] deals with discrimination of National/Racial/Ethnic minorities. It states, among other things that, "No cases of ethnically-motivated violence against Roma people were reported." The panel finds that being Roma does not in itself support a claim for Convention refugee status. The claimant has not adduced sufficient credible evidence on which to find him to be a Convention refugee. There is insufficient credible evidence before the panel to indicate that there is more than a reasonable chance that he will be persecuted if he were to return to Romania today.1 |
Read with the whole decision, I find this statement discloses three reviewable errors.
[2] First, the "documentary evidence" quoted, is one sentence from the following paragraph:
| The Romani population, officially estimated by the Government at approximately 400,000, is estimated by the European Commission to number between 1.1 and 1.5 million. No cases of ethnically-motivated violence against Roma people were reported [to the Department for the Protection of National Minorities].2 However, Romani groups complain of routine police brutality, prejudice, and racial harassment at the local level. Although those who were involved in 1993 incidents in Hadareni, in which three Romani persons died in a house burning, were sentenced to terms in prison in 1998, the court rulings have not become final as yet because of appeals. The Romanian daily Ziua reported on September 7 that the Office for the Fund for Social Security and Health in Iasi banned from the Iasi county hospital Roma who cannot afford to pay for their medical treatment and cannot prove that they have medical insurance provided by the State. An NGO, Liga Pro Europa, sent a letter expressing concern to the Department for the Protection of National Minorities on September 2. In response, the Department opened an investigation on October 7 and requested he Ministry of Health to do the same. As of November 29, the ban on Roma had not been withdrawn. Some steps have been taken toward establishing an institutional framework to improve the conditions of the Roma, but in practice little progress has been made. The Department for the Protection of National Minorities and a working roup of Roma associations set up by the Roma community signed an agreement for drafting a strategy for the protection of the Roma minority. Meanwhile, the Romani population continues to be subject to societal discrimination. |
[Emphasis added]
[3] In my opinion, the only thing that the one sentence quoted proves is that there were no reports of ethnically motivated violence against Roma made to the Department for the Protection of National Minorities during a certain time period. The balance of the paragraph proves that discrimination exists in Romania against Roma, whether or not it is being reported. In addition, I find that the record before the CRDD contains ample documentary evidence to substantiate this fact.
[4] The CRDD's purpose of quoting the sentence in the decision appears to be to diminish the significance of ethnic discrimination against Roma in Romania. As it is taken seriously out of context, and is, therefore, misleading, I find the statement to be contrary to the evidence on the record.
[5] Second, it is agreed that the Applicant has the burden to prove that there is a reasonable chance that he would be persecuted for Convention grounds if returned to Romania. However, the CRDD states the burden as more than this and is, therefore, an error in law.
[6] Third, it is agreed that reasons must be given to substantiate negative findings of credibility. In the present case, no reasons are given for significant findings by the CRDD that the Applicant's evidence is not believed.
ORDER
Accordingly, I set the CRDD's decision aside and refer the matter back to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.
"Douglas R. Campbell"
JUDGE
Calgary, Alberta
February 20, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20010220
Docket: IMM-3215-00
BETWEEN:
MARIAN STANCULESCU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3215-00
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Marian Stanculescu v. The Minister of |
Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: February 19, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF CAMPBELL, J.
DATED: February 20, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Ms. D. Jean Munn FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Brad Hardstaff FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Caron & Partners FOR APPLICANT |
Calgary, Alberta
Morris A. Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General
Of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________