Date: 20040226
Docket: IMM-3207-03
Citation: 2004 FC 269
Between:
OLEG VOLOVICH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated April 9, 2003, wherein the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Oleg Volovich ("the applicant") immigrated to Israel from Russia in 1991 where he received Israeli citizenship because his maternal grandfather is Jewish. The applicant is a practising Christian.
[3] The applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his Russian Christian ethnicity, his political opinion and because he does not wish to serve in the Israeli reserve armed forces.
[4] In this case, the Board found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee because he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground. In addition, the Board found that the applicant is not a "person in need of protection" because his removal to Israel would not subject him personally to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a risk of torture.
[5] One of the applicant's allegations is that he fears returning to Israel because he does not want to participate in the army reserves in Israel. In Israel, there is a law of general application which requires that citizens serve in the armed forces. The applicant has not demonstrated that the law is persecutory on a Convention ground (see Zolfagharkhani v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] 3 F.C. 540 (C.A)). The courts have found that it is not persecution for a country to have compulsory military service and an aversion to conflict or a fear of serving in themselves will not justify a fear of persecution on the basis of a law of general application (Garcia v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1994] F.C.J. No. 147 (T.D.) (QL)). The Board notes, in addition, that despite his alleged fear, the applicant did not explore any alternatives to his military service and he never expressed his objection to that effect. As a result, the Board did not err in finding that the applicant's allegations on this point are unfounded.
[6] The applicant argues that the Board ignored that the basis of his refugee claim is his unwillingness to participate in the killing of civilians and the deliberate destruction of homes. The applicant argues that within the context of the Israeli army's brutalizing Palestinians, the law of general application regarding compulsory military service becomes persecutory because the intent of the law is no longer to protect the state, but to condone illegal activities. A review of the evidence reveals that the Board did consider that the applicant objected to the Israeli policy towards Palestinians. The Board did not ignore this element of the applicant's claim. Rather, the Board found that the applicant had neither expressed his objection to the Israeli policy nor had he established that it led to his personal persecution. Although the applicant presented much evidence regarding the international community's condemnation of the Israeli policy towards Palestinians, nothing was presented to establish that he will be personally targeted as a result. Consequently, I find that the Board did not ignore this aspect of the applicant's claim. In fact, the Board confronted this allegation and deemed it unfounded because the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the risk he faces is personal to him.
[7] The applicant submits that it is not clear how the Board concluded that the treatment of military objectors in Israeli prisons is normal and acceptable. The applicant seems to have misunderstood the Board's approach of this issue. The issue is whether the applicant faces a risk of persecution or a risk of torture, or a threat to his life or of cruel and unusual punishment in Israel. The Board evaluated the evidence in order to determine the possible punishment which the applicant faces for violating the conscription law in Israel. The Board concluded that the applicant faces on average a two-month prison sentence, which the Board found to be reasonable given the breach of the law. I do not find that the Board erred in its analysis of this point.
[8] The applicant submits that the Board belittled his fear of persecution as an ethnic Russian Christian. The applicant notes that evidence was submitted which supports the allegation that Russians in Israel are persecuted as a social group and that certain Israeli laws are persecutory towards non-Jewish citizens. According to the applicant, these laws and the routine discrimination in Israel should be deemed persecution. Although it is possible that Russian Christians may face discrimination in Israel, the applicant's allegations did not meet the threshold of persecutory treatment (see generally Chan v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593). The applicant was unable to provide a specific example of an instance in which he was personally targeted and persecuted on the basis of his ethnicity as a Russian Christian. As a result, the Board's determination that the alleged discrimination was not so severe as to amount to persecution was reasonable.
[9] Finally, the applicant argues that the Board was biassed in reaching its decision. However, the applicant has provided no serious evidence about this allegation of bias. In addition, a reading of the transcripts did not reveal any suggestion of bias whatsoever. Consequently, I find that this allegation is without merit.
[10] For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated that the Board committed a reviewable error in its disposition of this case. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 26, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3207-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: OLEG VOLOVICH v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 20, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: February 26, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Oleg Volovich ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Peter Bell FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Oleg Volovich ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Burnaby, British Columbia
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario