Ottawa, Ontario, October 14, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Fearing
reprisals from a neighbouring family and extortion from criminal gangs in Guatemala, Mr. Edwin
Manchame sought refugee protection in Canada. A panel of the
Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim. It viewed the neighbours’
threats as isolated criminal acts, not persecution, and the gangs’ activities
as a wide-spread danger, not a personalized risk to Mr. Manchame.
[2] Mr. Manchame argues that the Board erred in respect of both of those findings and asks me to order another panel of the Board to reconsider his claim. However, I cannot find a basis to overturn the Board’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[3]
The
main issue put forward by Mr. Manchame is whether the Board gave proper consideration
to the grounds for granting refugee protection in s. 97(1)(b) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA); see Annex “A”.
I. Factual Background
[4]
Mr.
Manchame’s father shot and killed a neighbour’s son after a disagreement over
ownership of a plot of land in Jocotan, Guatemala. The
victim’s brothers sought revenge against Mr. Manchame and other members of his
family.
[5]
Mr.
Manchame fled Jocotan and found a job as a bus driver in Guatemala
City.
There, gang members regularly boarded his bus, demanded money from him and
robbed his passengers. They also threatened him and his family at home.
II. The Board’s Decision
[6]
The
Board did not question Mr. Manchame’s version of events. However, as mentioned,
it did not regard the neighbours’ threats as amounting to persecution. In
addition, given that Mr. Manchame did not hear anything from his former
neighbours after he moved to Guatemala City, the Board concluded
that there was no longer any objective basis for his fear.
[7]
The
Board noted that extortion of bus drivers in Guatemala was common
place and well-documented. In addition, it observed that Mr. Manchame could
avoid threats of harm simply by changing jobs. It relied on the Federal Court
of Appeal’s conclusion that, where persons are at risk because of their
occupation, they are not entitled to refugee protection unless they can show that
there was no other reasonably available line of work (see Sanchez v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 99).
III. Did the Board fail to give proper
consideration to s. 97(1) of IRPA?
[8]
In
respect of the neighbours’ threat, the Board found that there no longer
remained an objective basis for Mr. Manchame’s fear given that he had not heard
anything further after he fled to Guatemala City. I see no basis for
disputing that finding. Mr. Manchame stated at the hearing that he felt sure
the neighbours could still find him and harm him, but I cannot fault the Board
for concluding that there was no objective evidence supporting that concern.
[9]
As
for the threats against Mr. Manchame as a bus driver, I note his own testimony
that “they told me that, if I did not give them money, I had two options - either
leave work or that they were going to kill me”. Given this evidence, I cannot
fault the Board for its reliance on the principle set out in the Sanchez
case, above.
IV. Conclusion
[10] In my view, the Board’s conclusions were supported by the evidence. Therefore, I cannot find them to be unreasonable and must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question for certification, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
- The application for judicial review is dismissed;
- No question of general importance is stated.
Annex “A”
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally … (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country, (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
|
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, ch. 27
97. (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée : […] b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant : (i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays, (ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas, (iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles, (iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-406-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: MANCHAME v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: October 1, 2008
APPEARANCES:
|
Peter Wuebbolt |
|
|
Neal Samson |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
PETER J. BUEBBOLT Toronto, ON |
|
|
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, ON
|
|