OTTAWA, Ontario, October 25th, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
BETWEEN:
and
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board (the Board) dated March 3, 2005 where the applicant was found not to be Convention refugee or person in need of protection. The applicant claimed refugee status from Turkey because he converted from Islam to Christianity.
FACTS
[2] The applicant, a 20 year-old citizen of Turkey, arrived in Canada on August 8, 2003 with a student visa. He sought refugee protection on August 25, 2003. The applicant claims a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of Turkish authorities and extreme Islamist elements because he is a Christian converted from Islam and because he objects to serving in the military.
[3] The applicant was born into a Sunni Muslim family in Turkey. He began to openly question his faith following the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. Thereafter he began inquiring into Christianity, an endeavour which ultimately led to his conversion.
[4] Before the Board, the applicant testified that he had been subject to violent reprisals for his open questioning of Islam. He stated that he had been assaulted and received numerous threats to his life from individuals associated with a nationalist Islamic organization Ulku Ocoklari, and that he had been detained and assaulted by Turkish police. Specifically, the applicant alleged that:
(i) following open religious discussions with Muslims of his community, he began to receive threats from persons connected to the Ulku Ocoklari;
(ii) in May 2002 he was accosted by two individuals who questioned his remarks regarding Islam and thereafter assaulted him, leaving him unconscious and requiring medical attention;
(iii) he received further threats to his safety following that incident; and
(iv) on June 12, 2002 he was detained by police outside the Presbyterian Church in Kadikoy, was taken to the police station, and was assaulted by Turkish authorities who told him some people had made complaints against him that he was insulting the Islamic faith.
THE DECISION
[5] By decision dated March 3, 2005 the Board rejected the applicant's claim for protection on the basis that there exists no significant persecution of Christians in Turkey and that the applicant's involvement in Christianity was insufficient to attract persecution on religious grounds. The Board reached its conclusion based on the following findings:
(i) the applicant's degree of involvement in the Christian community was low and not comparable to that of evangelicals seen as proselytizing that were often targets;
(ii) the applicant's detainment and assault by police was an isolated instance of harassment that did not amount to persecution;
(iii) the applicant first attempted to come to Canada before he was due for military service, and the applicant's stated objection to military service on religious grounds was not a genuine reason for his claim to remain in Canada; and
(iv) even if the applicant's objection to military service were genuine, the legal consequences of conscientiously objecting under law of general application in Turkey would not amount to persecution.
[6] In rejecting the applicant's claim of persecution, the Board canvassed two documents, an Update to TUR23949.E of its own Research Directorate on the treatment of Muslims who convert to Christianity, and "Minorities in Turkey" published by the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (the "Directorate documents"). The Board's findings from the documentary evidence are found at page 2 of its reasons:
While documentary evidence indicates that information is scarce on the treatment of Muslims who convert to Christianity, it is true that "many prosecutors regard proselytizing and religious activism on the part of either Islamic extremists or evangelical Christians with suspicion, especially when they deem such activities to have political overtones". The same document indicates that the courts usually dismiss any charges brought against people involved in such activities. Another document that deals with religious minority rights in reasonable detail specifically deals with Alevis, Armenians, Jews, Greeks and Assyrians. I find it reasonable to infer that the problems of Christians would have been dealt with in this document if, in my view, it was as significant as the others mentioned above. In the claimant's case I find that the problems he alleged that he encountered, even when taken cumulatively, amounts to harassment and not persecution. ...
[7] The Board found that the applicant only had a "low level" of involvement in Christianity, and that he would not be persecuted as some evangelical Christians who proselytize are. Moreover, the applicant's detention and assault by the police was an isolated incident, and not evidence of systematic violence against Christians. The Board held at page 3:
... After his conversion to Christianity the claimant testified that he spoke to only a few people about his views about Islam and his newfound faith. He cannot, by any degree of significance, be compared to the evangelicals described in the documentary evidence quoted above. The claimant testified that he visited the church officials a few times and that he started to read the Bible. I find his involvement with Christianity to be a low level not likely, in my view, to merit the ire of Islamic extremists. [...] While I do not condone the statement by the claimant that the police beat him [...] I find he was the victim of the use of excessive force by some members of the police service. I find this to be an isolated unfortunate incident.
ISSUES
[8] The two issues raised in this application are:
1. Did the Board err in assessing the applicant's fear of persecution by ignoring relevant and contradictory documentary evidence presented by the applicant?
2. Did the Board err in finding the applicant's involvement in Christianity was at too low a level to attract the ire of Islamic extremists?
I note that the issue of the applicant's objection to military service was not an issue in the matter before the Court.
ANALYSIS
Issue No. 1: Did the Board err in assessing the applicant's fear of persecution by ignoring relevant and contradictory evidence?
[9] The applicant submits that the Board erred by ignoring documents relevant to the objective assessment of his fear of persecution. The respondent, citing my decision in Osayande v. Canada, [ 2002] F.C.J. No. 511 at paragraph 20, submits that the Board, in rejecting the applicant's claim of persecution, had regard to all of the documentary evidence and need not make specific reference to all of the evidence.
[10] In its reasons for rejecting the applicant's claim of persecution on religious grounds, the Board cited the Directorate documents, but did not refer to any contradictory evidence. The applicant submits such evidence exists in the form of documents that he submitted with concurrent written submissions to the Board on February 21, 2005, subsequent to the oral hearing. The documents referred to by the applicant include, inter alia: the United Kingdom's Hansard Report dated 15 June, 2000; press releases detailing debates in the United Kingdom's House of Lords concerning the safety of Turkish Christians; and numerous internet consolidations detailing allegedly documented incidents of sectarian prosecution or harassment of Turkish Christians (collectively, the "applicant's documents").
[11] The Federal Court of Appeal established in Florea v. Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 per Hugessen J. at paragraph 1 that, "a tribunal is assumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented to it unless the contrary is shown." Therefore, an underlying assumption prevails that the Board weighed all of the relevant evidence before it in making its determination. This is not authority, however, that a tribunal need never refer to conflicting evidence.
[12] While there is no requirement mandating the Board to mention every minutiae of contradictory evidence in its reasons for decision, it cannot ignore highly relevant or corroborative evidence that tends to challenge its central findings. In this Court's decision in Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 (T.D.), Evans J. (as he then was) held at paragraph 17 that, "the more important the evidence that is not mentioned specifically ... the more willing a court may be to infer from the silence that the agency made an erroneous finding of fact".
[13] I have carefully reviewed the applicant's documents and all of the documentary evidence before the Board about conditions in Turkey. I know, and have often applied the law set out by Justice Evans in Cepeda-Gutierrez, supra, that important, relevant and contradictory evidence must be referred to, and distinguished, or else the Court will assume that the Board has ignored it, or made its decision without regard to this important evidence. In this case the applicant's documents are patently biased and partisan, and cannot be considered credible important evidence. Moreover, the hundreds of pages of documentary evidence about Turkey from the US Department of State and the United Kingdom Home Office provide comprehensive and objective reports which show that ordinary Christians are not persecuted in Turkey. Accordingly, the Court cannot accept that the applicant's documents are so important and relevant that they should have been specifically referred to by the Board.
Issue No. 2: Did the Board err in finding the applicant's involvement in Christianity was at too low a level to attract the ire of Islamic extremists?
[14] The standard of review applicable to the Board's finding of fact on this issue is patent unreasonableness. This Court will not substitute the Board's decision with its own, except where the Board's decision is clearly wrong. See Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), and De (Da) Li Chen v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(1999), 49 Imm. L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.).
[15] In my view, it was reasonably open to the Board to conclude that the incidents of threats and violence experienced by the applicant were isolated incidents of harassment, falling short of persecution. The Board's conclusion that the applicant's involvement with Christianity was of too low a level to be a target of persecution is reasonable on the evidence, and this Court should not interfere.
CONCLUSION
[16] The Court cannot interfere with the Board's finding of fact that Christians in Turkey such as the applicant are not persecuted, but experience harassment from some segments of the population. The Court understands why a young man like the applicant wants to flee Turkey for Canada, but such a person cannot come as a refugee unless the Board is satisfied he is a true Convention refugee.
[17] No party proposed a question of general importance for certification, and none is certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1891-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: FATIH SONMEZ v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: WINNIPEG, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: October 19, 2005
AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Hafeez Khan
|
|
| Mr. Derwin Petri
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Mr. Hafeez Khan Davis & Associates Law Office Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
|
| Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|