CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Status in Canada |
Convention Refugees |
Sinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-569-01
2002 FCT 903, Blanchard J.
23/8/02
12 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD's decision applicants, citizens of Romania, not Convention refugees on ground no credible basis for claim--Convention refugee claim based on well-founded fear of persecution on basis of Roma race, nationality--Male applicant alleging arrests, beatings because of involvement in Roma Political Party--Female applicant alleging twice raped, second rape resulting in miscarriage--At port of entry, applicants essentially told immigration officials they came to Canada to have better life, no mention of persecution, Roma ethnicity--Application allowed--CRDD failed to expressly refer to documents submitted by applicants: police summons, hospital release notes, male applicant's Roma Party Identity Card, significant country condition documentation about police violence, harassment, discrimination against Roma persons--In light of country condition evidence, documentary evidence specific to applicants could conceivably have affected Board's appreciation of applicants' claim--This evidence should have been expressly considered by Board--Failure to refer to document will be considered reviewable error when document timely, in sense that bears on relevant time period, prepared by reputable independent author who is reliable source of information and that topic addressed in document directly relevant to applicant's claim: Gourenko v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1995), 93 F.T.R. 264 (F.C.T.D.)--Above-mentioned personal documents, not dealt with in CRDD's reasons, meet above criteria--Documentary evidence advanced by applicants specific to applicants' claims, corroborative of their claims, important evidence, particularly of issues of identity, persecution--As to discrepancies between what applicants told immigration officials at port of entry and evidence as stated in PIFs, testimony, when evidence linking applicants to persecution feared other than testimony alone, then such evidence must be considered before "no credible basis" finding can be made--Need to mention and specifically analyze documentary evidence increases with relevance of evidence to decision--Herein, CRDD failed to consider independent, credible documentary evidence--CRDD committed reviewable error in failing to expressly consider, assess above-noted documentary evidence.