Date: 20040827
Docket: IMM-7248-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1179
Ottawa, Ontario, August 27, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
ZEYNEP CINKITAS AND DILEK CINKITAS
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (panel), dated August 27, 2003, under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (Act). In that decision, the panel determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 of the Act nor persons in need of protection within the meaning of section 97 of the Act.
ISSUE
[2] Does the panel's decision warrant the intervention of the Court?
[3] For the following reasons, I answer in the negative and would therefore dismiss this application for judicial review.
FACTS
[4] The applicant Zeynep Cinkitas (applicant) and her daughter Dilek Cinkitas are citizens of Turkey. They allege that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their Kurdish ethnicity and their Alevi religion. Further, Dilek Cinkitas alleges that she has a well-founded fear of persecution because of her membership in a particular social group, namely that of the family and that of individuals suffering from organic brain syndrome.
[5] These are the alleged facts, as described by the panel. The applicant is of Kurdish descent on her father's side and both of her parents are of the Alevi religion.
[6] After her marriage in 1971, the applicant and her husband, both teachers by trade, worked in Kahraman Maras. In 1978, her home as well as the homes of many Kurds living in their village were marked with a red sign during the night. In the morning, the marked homes were attacked by the Turks. Her husband was then arrested and incarcerated. At that time, the applicant was in Adana with her family. Upon her return, she went to the police station where for a day she was then detained, questioned and beaten.
[7] Following her father's death in 1981, she pursued her teaching career with difficulty and in 1994, she was dismissed. She then worked at home as a seamstress. She had many problems with her neighbours who insulted her continually because of her Alevi religion and her Kurdish ethnicity and she found herself obligated to move three times.
[8] In November 2001, during the Ramadan period, the applicant was attacked by a group of women at a business. Fearing the police after her arrest, she decided not to file a complaint. No longer able to bear the persecution she was suffering and in fear of the predicament of single women in Turkey, the applicant decided to leave the country. She and her daughter then obtained a false visa for the United States on January 9, 2003, and left Turkey. On January 10, 2003, they arrived in Montréal and claimed refugee status.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[9] The panel determined that the applicant was not credible because of many omissions and contradictions. It also found that the applicant had not satisfactorily established her subjective fear of persecution. Moreover, the panel noted that the documentary evidence did not establish that the fear connected to belonging to the Alevi religion was founded. Finally, with respect to the applicant Dilek's fear connected to her membership in the social group of individuals suffering from organic brain syndrome, the panel determined that it was not persecution but rather discrimination.
ANALYSIS
[10] In order to warrant the intervention of the Court, the applicants must establish that the panel's decision is patently unreasonable.
[11] Certain significant contradictions and omissions in the applicant's testimony are not disputed by the applicant. Further, the applicant alleged at question 40 of her Personal Information Form (PIF) that she had been detained one day in 1978, a version that she maintained at the hearing. However, at question 38 of her PIF, as well as in another form filled out on her arrival, the applicant indicated rather that she had never been arrested. The same applies to the notes of the immigration officer made at the port of entry. Therefore, the applicant indicated that she had never been detained on four occasions in the documents and in the information provided in support of her refugee protection claim. At the hearing, the applicant stated that she had been the victim of a rape on November 20, 2001. Confronted with the fact that this tragic incident was not mentioned in her PIF, the applicant corrected herself and spoke instead of an attempted rape. She could not explain why this information did not appear in her PIF despite the amendments she had made to it. The applicant also contradicted herself about the day when she allegedly met a client that explained to her how to leave Turkey. The applicants did not leave Turkey until January 2003, despite the fact that they had had their documents since September 2002. They had feared their country since 1980, especially so after November 2001.
[12] In my view, the panel had every right to point out these contradictions and to draw from them a negative inference about the applicant's credibility.
[13] Moreover, the panel did not believe the applicant and her daughter, who say they are Kurd. The applicant seemed to have dubious knowledge of the Kurdish culture. She did not know the name or date of the Kurdish New Year. The panel also noted that the applicant does not speak Kurdish and that she did not make any reference to her Kurdish origin when she arrived in Canada, either in her form or in her interview with the immigration officer. These challenges are not disputed by the applicant.
[14] As for the fear connected to belonging to the Alevi religion, the panel referred to two objective documents from a reliable source. The first states that "being Alevi is not, in itself, sufficient reason to fear oppression . . . While there may be some discrimination directed towards certain groups or individuals, there is no systematic oppression of all Alevis". The second documentary source states that "there is no evidence that Alevis are persecuted on account of their religious beliefs by the Turkish State". Discrimination and persecution are not synonymous.
[15] Finally, with respect to the applicant Dilek's fear based on her membership in a social group of individuals suffering from organic brain syndrome, the panel stated the following:
. . . It emerged from the questioning that Dilek does not want to return to Turkey because, in her country, they call her crazy and insult her. Despite all the compassion that the panel may have for the situation in which the claimant's daughter finds herself, the events that she has experienced do not constitute persecution within the meaning of the Convention since they constitute, rather, discrimination against her because of her state of health, instead. The insults are not mistreatment of such a severity that they can be equated with persecution within the meaning of the Convention. Furthermore, the panel does not find that the incidents experienced by Dilek amount to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. . . .
[16] Neither the applicant nor her daughter established that the panel's findings on this point amounted to a material error.
[17] To summarize, the panel arrived at its findings after a complete review of the evidence. They are reasonable and are based on the essential elements of the applicants' claim. There is therefore no basis for the Court to intervene. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[18] The parties declined to submit questions for certification. This case does not involve any question for certification.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7248-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ZEYNEP CINKITAS AND
DILEK CINKITAS
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 25, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: BEAUDRY J.
DATE OF REASONS AND OF
THE ORDER: August 27, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Eveline Fiset FOR THE APPLICANTS
Annie Van der Meerschen FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Eveline Fiset FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec