Date: 20040729
Docket: IMM-5827-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1042
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER
BETWEEN:
YOLANDE PERSUE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
SNIDER J.
[1] Ms. Yolande Persue, a citizen of Grenada, claims to be a Convention refugee. She bases her claim on her membership in a particular social group, namely, Grenadian women subjected to domestic violence.
[2] In a decision dated July 3, 2003, a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the _Board_) determined that Ms. Persue was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. The sole and determinative issue for the Board was state protection. The Board found that, although domestic violence remains a serious problem in Grenada and state protection for Grenadian women subjected to violence is not perfect, state protection is nevertheless still available.
[3] Ms. Persue seeks judicial review of the Board's decision.
[4] The only issue for determination in this application is whether the Board erred in its finding that adequate state protection exists in Grenada for female victims of violence.
Analysis
[5] In Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 at 724, the Supreme Court of Canada held that, to successfully claim Convention refugee status, a refugee claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the absence of state protection. The issue raised in this judicial review application is whether the Board's finding of the existence of state protection amounts to a reviewable error. To this question, the standard of patent unreasonableness applies (Alli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 20 Imm. L.R. (3d) 252 (F.C.T.D.)).
[6] A presumption of state protection exists and it can only be rebutted if a claimant satisfies his or her burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof on the claimant is directly proportional to the level of democracy in the state in question. The more democratic a state's institutions are, the more the claimant must have done to exhaust all courses of action open to him or her (Ward, supra at 725; N.K. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 206 N.R. 272 at para. 5 (F.C.A.)).
[7] The failure of state protection to materialize in the one instance where Ms. Persue sought it does not help her: _Local failures to provide effective policing do not amount to [a] lack of state protection._ (Zhuravlvev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 187 F.T.R. 110 at para. 31).
[8] The Board found that Ms. Persue could obtain a restraining order as a form of protection. Further, there was evidence before the Board indicating that the situation in Grenada has improved for victims of domestic violence since 1995 when the alleged incidents of abuse occurred. Although the protection afforded to victims is not perfect, given inadequate resources to fully implement new domestic violence legislation, the existence of this legislation and its graduated implementation demonstrates a sincere willingness of the state to protect victims of violence. This evidence of willingness coupled with the availability of a restraining order-which is not denied by Ms. Persue in her submissions-suggests that the Board's decision is not patently unreasonable.
[9] Finally, contrary to the submissions of the Applicant, I am satisfied that the Board did not ignore relevant evidence regarding Grenada's failure to fully implement the laws on domestic violence. Reference in the decision to the fact that state protection for victims of domestic abuse is not perfect is, in my view, an acknowledgement of the evidence before the Board. That evidence was general in nature and did not suggest that restraining orders or other means of protection of the Applicant were absent.
[10] For these reasons, the application will be dismissed. Neither party suggested that I certify a question of general importance. None will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application is dismissed; and,
2. No question of general importance is certified.
_Judith A. Snider_
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5827-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: YOLANDE PERSUE v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: July 27, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: The Honourable Justice Snider
DATED: July 29, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Hart A. Kaminker FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Stephen Jarvis FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kranc & Associates FOR APPLICANT
Toronto, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada