Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971124

Docket: IMM-4809-96

BETWEEN:

     VALERI YORDANOV TOCHEV,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

HEALD D.J.

[1]      This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated November 29, 1996 wherein the Board concluded that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.

FACTS

[2]      The applicant is a citizen of Bulgaria. He came to Canada on September 11, 1992. He claimed refugee status on the basis of imputed political opinion. He supported UMO Ilinden and was involved in a name changing campaign against ethnic Turks in 1987. His wife came to Canada on March 3, 1993. Her claim was joined with that of the applicant. His wife is living separate and apart from the applicant. For the purposes of judicial review, their claims were dealt with separately. The wife's application for judicial review was allowed by Cullen J. on September 11, 1997 (File No. IMM-4808-96).

THE DECISION OF THE BOARD

[3]      The Board concluded that the applicant was not a credible witness. The renaming incident referred to supra occurred nearly 10 years ago and any retaliation that did occur was directed against the state rather than against individuals. Furthermore, the Board did not believe that the applicant would be at risk of punishment for having delivered letters from the Rakovski League to Ilinden. The Board concluded that the alleged communication from his mother had been contrived by the applicant to demonstrate the risk to which he was subjected. The Board also rejected the refugee claim of the applicant's wife.

ISSUES

1.      Did the Board err in making negative findings with respect to the applicant's credibility?

2.      Did the Board err in assessing the applicant's fear of the military?

---

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[4]      The Board expressed to the applicant their doubts concerning the credibility of his testimony. He was given ample opportunity to respond to these doubts. The Board cited documentary evidence which contradicted the applicant's oral testimony. It also gave clear reasons for its findings. On this record, such a conclusion was reasonably open to the Board and should not be disturbed.¹

Fear of the Military

[5]      The applicant submits that the Board was in error in assessing his fear of the military, particularly so since it had erred in assessing his wife's evidence concerning her alleged rape. I have difficulty in attaching any weight to this submission. These are two quite separate incidents, and the one does not affect the other in any way. Even accepting the applicant's evidence that he feared the military because he had left a civilian position with them without permission, such punishment would constitute prosecution rather than persecution.

[6]      In any event, the Board set out clear and precise reasons for not finding that the applicant faced fear of persecution from the military. Such a finding by the Board was clearly open to it on its appreciation of the evidence.

[7]      Even though Cullen J. concluded supra that the Board erred in assessing the applicant's wife's evidence concerning the rape, such a finding does not affect in any way the negative findings of the Board relating to the credibility of the applicant's evidence. The claim of the applicant's wife is quite separate from the claim of the applicant. The applicant's wife said that she feared the military police for her own reasons, apart from those given by her husband. She had worked for the military and had left the country without permission. Her fear did not depend on any of the applicant's testimony. The errors made by the Board when assessing the claim of the applicant's wife do not affect the applicant's claim in any way.

CONCLUSION

[8]      For the foregoing reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed.

CERTIFICATION

[9]      Neither counsel proposed the certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification

                         Darrel V. Heald

                         Deputy Judge

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

November 24, 1997

__________________

     ¹      Compare Ismaeili v. M.C.I., IMM-2008-94, April 11, 1994 (T.D.).