Date: 20030224
Docket: IMM-1017-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 233
Ottawa, Ontario, February 24, 2003
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
DURMUS GULER
HULYA GULER
ENES GULER
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[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 January 31, 2002, wherein the Board determined that the applicants were not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants, Durmus Guler, (the male applicant) his wife Hulya Guler (the female applicant) and their son, Enes Guler (the minor applicant) are citizens of Turkey. The male applicant, an Alevi Kurd, claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his ethnicity and faith. The female and minor applicants base their claims on their membership in a particular social group, the family of the male applicant. The female applicant contends that she would be detained because of her husband's police record.
[3] The male applicant alleged that the following events took place:
[4] He was arrested for the first time in May 1996, during a May Day parade in which he marched with the HADEP contingent. He was questioned as to whether he had any involvement with the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK) or HADEP. He was also beaten with truncheons, and subjected to falaka (beaten on the soles of his feet). He was released after three days.
[5] In August 1997, one month before his scheduled wedding, he was abducted and beaten up by members of the MHP who had been informed by the female applicant's family that she was marrying an Alevi Kurd. The couple eloped and moved to Istanbul.
[6] In March 1999, he was arrested again during a Newroz celebration. He was accused of being a separatist and a PKK supporter. He was subjected to Palestinian hanging, falaka, and cold water pressure. He was released after four days, but was required to report to local police for one year. He did so for three months, in Istanbul, and then two more months in Kocaeli.
[7] In August 1999, an earthquake struck, destroying the house that he and his family lived in. In October 1999, he was stopped by police and was required to begin reporting again.
[8] In January 2000, he participated in a demonstration having to do with the earthquake and aid distribution/treatment of victims. He was with the HADEP group and was arrested, and hung by his wrists from the ceiling. He was asked if he would act as a police informant, informing on the PKK and HADEP. He bribed two police officers with the $500 US that he had on him and was released.
[9] The police came twice to his home in January 2000. He was not there. The baby was woken and the female applicant was pushed and threatened that she would be detained if she didn't reveal her husband's whereabouts. The police said that they would come back and then left.
[10] He took his family to a relative at the beginning of February 2000. He went to Istanbul. He used an agent for some of the travel arrangements but found that he didn't need the agent. He got a cousin in Canada to provide the family with an invitation and went to the Canadian Embassy for an interview. He used the earthquake as an opportunity to get a Canadian Visitors Visa.
[11] The applicants arrived in Canada on March 31, 2000.
[12] The Board did not find the applicants to be credible witnesses. It did not believe that the male applicant was detained and tortured as he claimed. Rather, the Board believed that the applicants took advantage of an earthquake to realize their hope to come to Canada, a plan the male applicant had entertained, according to the evidence, since 1993.
[13] It is trite law that this Court is reluctant to interfere with a decision of the Board based on the credibility of a witness, given the Board's ability to assess the witness in oral testimony before it. (Ankrah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 385 (Q.L.)). Where the Board finds a claimant not credible based on implausibility findings which are open to it on the evidence, this Court will not interfere in the decision unless an overriding error has been made by the Board. (Oduro v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 66 F.T.R. 106).
[14] In the present case, the Board offered detailed reasons citing numerous contradictions, inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence concerning central aspects of the applicants' claim. Despite the thorough argument of counsel, I have not been persuaded that the Board's finding on credibility was either unreasonable or perverse.
[15] The applicants further submit that the Board erred in law because although it accepted that the male applicant suffered discrimination, it did not consider whether these incidents of discrimination on a cumulative basis gave rise to a well-founded fear of persecution. (Bobrik v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1364 (Q.L.)). I disagree with the applicants.
[16] It is clear from the Board's reasons that it accepted that the applicants had suffered discrimination. In particular, the Board accepted that the male applicant had suffered some discrimination based on his identity as an Alevi Kurd and his marriage to a Sunni Turk. However, the Board did not believe his claims of persecution at the hands of the Turkish authorities. In its decision, the Board stated that having considered the evidence in its totality, it found that the applicants did not face a serious possibility of persecution. Such a finding was reasonable based on the evidence.
[17] In conclusion, the applicants have failed to show that the Board committed an error of law or that its decision was capricious or perverse, or made without regard to the evidence before it.
[18] For all these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-1017-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: DURMUS GULER ET AL.
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 19, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER, J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 24, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. D. Clifford Luyt
For the Applicant
Ms. Patricia MacPhee
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. D. Clifford Luyt
Waldman & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
281 Eglinton Avenue East Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent