Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040609

Docket: IMM-2250-03

Citation: 2004 FC 829

Toronto, Ontario, June 9th, 2004

Present:           The Honourable Justice von Finckenstein

BETWEEN:                                                                                       

                                                                 ERVIN LIMAJ

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

            (Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for clarification and precision)

[1]                This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board"), dated February 28, 2003 dismissing the claim for refugee status by the Applicant, a citizen of Albania.     

[2]                The Applicant claimed to be persecuted by reason of being a member of the Republican Party and belonging to his father's family who is active in the Democratic Party.

[3]                The Board rejected the Applicant's claim on the basis that there was no credible or persuasive evidence that the Applicant faced a well-founded fear of persecution for his activity in the Republican Party and that there was no credible or persuasive evidence that the Applicant faced a well-founded fear of persecution because of his membership in a particular social group, namely his father's family.

[4]                The Applicant argued that the Board a) misapplied the test set out in Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 57 D.L.R. (4th) 153, b) misinterpreted the evidence and c) ignored relevant documents.

[5]                I find nothing in the reasons to suggest the Board did not understand the Adjei test or misapplied it, it used the language of that decision and applied it.

[6]                Similarly there is no mention in the documentary country evidence issued by the IRB, the Department of citizenship and Immigration or the State Department to indicate that members of the Republican Party are facing persecution in Albania. Consequently it was not unreasonable for the the Board to find "that there was no credible or persuasive evidence that this claimant was persecuted for his activity in the Republican Party".


[7]                Lastly the Board did not ignore the evidence of Refi Ceka, chairman of the local chapter of the Republican Party or the medical evidence of injury to the Applicant and his father. The medical evidence was uncontradicted but there was no evidence showing these injuries were related to membership in the Republican Party. It would have been preferable for the Board to have more fully explained its rejection of Refi Ceka's two documents or elaborated on the lack of relevance of the medical evidence. It did however observe that Refi Ceka is a close friend of the Applicant's father. The tribunal record also shows that both Refi Ceka and the Applicant's father are still living in Albania. It is thus implicit in the Board's decision that it questioned the veracity of Refi Ceka's documents as well that the Applicant was persecuted for being a member of his father's family, given that the father still lives in Albania.

[8]                 This Court should not seek to re-weigh evidence before the Board simply because it would have reached a different conclusion. As long as there is evidence to support the Board's finding of credibility and no overriding error had occurred, the decision should not be disturbed.

[9]                The Board is only required to consider the totality of documentary evidence adduced, and does not need to focus on specific examples that are contrary to its conclusion (Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1992] F.C.J. No. 946.

[10]            None of the points raised by the Applicant would suggest that the Board committed a reversible error. Consequently this application is denied.   


                                                                       ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that this Application for judicial review is dismissed.

"K. von Finckenstein"

                                                                                                                                                   J.F.C.                          


FEDERAL COURT

                                     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                               IMM-2250-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: ERVIN LIMAJ                                                            

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:        TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:           JUNE 8, 2004     

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                 von FINCKENSTEIN J.

DATED:                                  JUNE 9, 2004

APPEARANCES BY:         

Mr. Jack Martin

FOR THE APPLICANT

Ms. Diane Dagenais

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:         

Jack Martin

Barrister & Solicitor

Toronto, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE RESPONDENT


                               FEDERAL COURT

                                           Date: 20040609

                                             Docket: IMM-2250-03

BETWEEN:

ERVIN LIMAJ

                                                                              Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                         Respondent

                                                                                               

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

                                                                                


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.