Date: 19971106
Docket: IMM-247-97
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RICHARD
Between:
EDUARD YANKILEVITCH
SVETLANA YANKILEVITCH,
Applicants,
- AND -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
ORDER
Application for judicial review from a decision dated October 21, 1996 in file numbers M95-04592 and M95-04594 by Jean-Claude Desmarais and Louis Dorion, members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, pursuant to section 82.1 of the Immigration Act.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application be dismissed.
| John D. Richard |
| Judge |
Certified true translation
Stephen Balogh
Date: 19971106
Docket: IMM-247-97
Between:
EDUARD YANKILEVITCH
SVETLANA YANKILEVITCH,
Applicants,
- AND -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated October 21, 1996 that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants are natives of the former USSR and became Israeli citizens on April 4, 1991. They claim refugee status in Canada, alleging that they have a well-founded fear of religious persecution.
[3] The male applicant, whose father is Jewish, received his Teudat Zehut on May 30, 1993, and his nationality was identified thereon as "Russian". The female applicant received hers on December 23, 1993, and her nationality was identified as [translation] "undetermined". The male applicant's claim is based on the testimony of his wife, who stated that she is Russian and Christian.
[4] In a four-year period between 1991 and 1995, the applicants lived in Haifa, Khadera, Bnei-Brak and Ramat-Gan. The applicants claim that they were persecuted in each of these four cities and that they did not receive police protection.
[5] The applicants submit, first, that the panel's decision is unreasonable because no reasons were given for it.
[6] The decision contains the following reasons:
| [translation] At the hearing, the Refugee Claim Officer carefully reviewed the extensive literature on religious freedom in Israel. He used it to conclude that there was no discrimination on this ground. Furthermore, counsel for the claimants admitted this at the outset. However, she submitted that the mood in Israel is unfavourable to the practice of Christianity. Since her clients accused the police of serious and systematic assaults motivated by religious intolerance, we have concluded that her clients were guilty of exaggeration. |
| The documents adduced in evidence present Israel as a democratic state with an independent and accessible judicial system governed by the rules of natural justice. There are a number of associations for the provision of legal assistance and the protection of freedoms, and they contribute actively to the integration of new immigrants into the country. Most of these associations do not appear to discriminate against mixed couples and non-Jewish immigrants. As for the police, they do not appear to react based on the ethnic or religious characteristics of Israeli citizens. Furthermore, as we have seen, the Ministry of Justice has an investigations office that receives complaints against the police. |
| Since the claimants have in responding been unable to impeach the integrity and truthfulness of the documentary evidence, it is our view that their testimony is exaggerated and, accordingly, untrustworthy. While it is not impossible that religious extremists bothered the new arrivals, it has not been proven to the panel's satisfaction that Israeli authorities are unable to intervene to guarantee the safety of all citizens. |
[7] The Court of Appeal stated the following in Mehterian:1
| Subsection 69.1(11) of the Immigration Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2] requires that the Refugee Division "give written reasons" for any decision against the claimant. If this obligation is to be met, the reasons must be sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible that the claimant may know why his claim has failed and decide whether to seek leave to appeal, where necessary. |
[8] The panel's decision meets this test. It enables the reader to understand that the applicants' testimony was found not to be credible because the panel considered it to be exaggerated after assessing its plausibility in light of the documentary evidence.
[9] The applicants then submit that the panel erred in applying the principle of state protection and committed an unreasonable error in giving primacy to the documentary evidence on Israel.
[10] The documents accepted by the panel were submitted by the refugee hearing officer at the beginning of the hearing. The applicants presented their own documentary evidence. The panel was entitled to rely on the evidence it considered most consistent with reality.2
[11] The panel concluded on the basis of that evidence that the applicants' testimony was greatly exaggerated and that it had not been proven that Israeli authorities were unable to intervene to guarantee the safety of all citizens.
[12] In Kadenko, the Court of Appeal held as follows:
| Once it is assumed that the state (Israel in this case) has political and judicial institutions capable of protecting its citizens, it is clear that the refusal of certain police officers to take action cannot in itself make the state incapable of doing so. |
[13] The panel's conclusion is not without foundation, and I cannot intervene.
[14] The application is dismissed.
| John D. Richard |
| Judge |
Ottawa, Ontario
November 6, 1997
Certified true translation
Stephen Balogh
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-247-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: EDUARD YANKILEVITCH ET AL. v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 29, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER BY RICHARD J.
DATED: November 6, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANT
Patricia Deslauriers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANT
George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________