Date: 19990128
Docket: IMM-1101-98
OTTAWA, Ontario, the 28th day of January, 1999
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
Between:
PETRU CATALIN CIOBANU
IOANA DENISA CIOBANU
VASILICA CIOBANU
Applicants
And:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
[1] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
| P. Rouleau |
| J. |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Date: 19990128
Docket: IMM-1101-98
Between:
PETRU CATALIN CIOBANU
IOANA DENISA CIOBANU
VASILICA CIOBANU
Applicants
And:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the panel), rendered on February 17, 1998, that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
[2] The applicants are citizens of Romania. Petru Catalin Ciobanu is the principal applicant. He is accompanied by his wife and their under-age daughter.
[3] Since the fall of Communism, the Romanian authorities have been distributing land that had been confiscated under the Communist regime. The redistribution worked to the disadvantage of the applicants. The mayor of the town they inhabited granted one of his friends a property that the principal applicant"s grandmother had hoped to acquire. The applicant then initiated a demonstration demanding that the mayor be removed from office. On April 14, 1995, about one hundred people gathered in front of the town hall to demonstrate against the mayor. Mr. Ciobanu and several other demonstrators entered the building and forced the mayor to write a letter of resignation. During the demonstration, some people committed thefts and vandalism. The mayor was threatened.
[4] That night, two police officers appeared at the applicant"s home and asked him to file a statement about the day"s events. The applicant refused. The police then shoved him around and took him away by force. At the police station, he wrote a statement; a policeman read it, called him a liar and beat him. He was released the next morning. The applicant then learned that the demonstrators who had accompanied him to the mayor"s office had also been interrogated.
[5] On May 10, some police officers carrying a search warrant searched his home and the home of his grandmother. Because the applicant was still refusing to alter his statement of April 14, the police detained him and beat him. Finally, he signed a new statement that was already written, without reading it, and the police then let him go.
[6] On May 12, 1995, the applicant left the area to take refuge in Bucharest. His wife, who remained in the house, had repeated visits and calls from the police, and noted that the house was under surveillance. A friend of the applicant told him that the police had evidence incriminating him in connection with the events of April 14, 1995.
[7] On June 16, 1995, the principal applicant"s wife was raped by one of the two police officers who had come to the house looking for him. Following this incident, the Ciobanu family came to Canada and filed an application for refugee status on July 11, 1995. They feared persecution by the police because of their political opposition to the authorities in their locality.
[8] The facts in this case are not disputed. The panel"s role was to determine whether the applicant risked persecution by the authorities for his political opinions under cover of criminal proceedings. It is unnecessary to determine whether the applicant is guilty of the alleged acts. Rather, it is necessary to look at whether the proceedings on the alleged offence are but a pretext for punishing the accused for his political opinions. A political offender is often faced with excessive or arbitrary punishment for some offence he allegedly committed. On the other hand, if a person is prosecuted for a punishable act and the treatment he is given is consistent with the treatment prescribed by the general law of the country in question, the fear of such proceedings does not, in itself, make that person a refugee.
[9] The onus is on the applicants to establish a relationship between their fear of persecution and one of the five grounds prescribed in the Convention.1 Whether there is a relationship between a fear of persecution and the Convention grounds is a question of fact that comes within the jurisdiction of the panel.2
[10] The panel decided that the applicants were not Convention refugees since they had failed to establish the existence of a reasonable possibility of persecution in Romania for a reason related to the definition of refugee. I am of the opinion that this conclusion is reasonable and well-founded in light of the evidence submitted. The record indicates that a Romanian court reviewed the mayor"s actions and decided that he had not violated in any way the land distribution legislation. Following the demonstration, the mayor was reinstated with the support of the regional authorities. The record also discloses that the applicant had some personal reasons to seek revenge against the mayor. He was the one who fomented the demonstration of April 14, 1995. During the demonstration, some people committed thefts and vandalism, and the mayor was assaulted. Apparently, the police had some evidence incriminating the applicant.
[11] The panel held that the applicant"s actions were not political but were rather aimed at protecting his personal interests. The actions were too disproportionate to the circumstances to be politically excusable, especially since another mayor was elected in 1996. Likewise, the treatment meted out to the applicant does not demonstrate a political campaign against the applicant by the authorities. He was never detained for more than 24 hours. The police obtained a warrant before conducting the search. Other demonstrators were also interrogated. The investigation appears to have been conducted in compliance with Romanian law. The applicant was beaten; however, as the panel stated: "[Translation ] [P]olice stupidity and immature investigation techniques do not invariably warrant recourse to international protection in the absence of credible proof of a desire by the police to persecute." Finally, the record does not indicate that the female applicant was raped on account of her husband"s actions. She appears to have been the victim of an isolated crime.
[12] I believe that the panel"s decision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
P. Rouleau
J.
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 28, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| FILE NO: IMM-1101-98 |
| STYLE: PETRU CATALIN CIOBANU, IOANA DENISA CIOBANU, VASILICA CIOBANU and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL |
| DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 11, 1999 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU J.
| DATED: JANUARY 28, 1999 |
APPEARANCES:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANTS
LISA MAZIADE FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANTS
MONTRÉAL
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
__________________1 Rizkallah v. M.E.I. (1992), 156 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.).
2 Leon Orellana v. M.C.I. (September 19, 1995), IMM-3520-94 (F.C.T.D.).