Kemenczei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2012) 421 F.T.R. 242 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 05, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 421 F.T.R. 242 (FC);2012 FC 1349

Kemenczei v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2012), 421 F.T.R. 242 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.050

Palne Kemenczei (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-2890-12; 2012 FC 1349; 2012 CF 1349)

Indexed As: Kemenczei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Russell, J.

November 21, 2012.

Summary:

Kemenczei, a 77 year-old female, was a citizen of Hungary. She claimed refugee protection on the basis that she feared persecution in Hungary due to her Roma ethnicity. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the claim because Kemenczei did not objectively have a well-founded fear of persecution and because she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection. Kemenczei applied for judicial review. At issue was whether the RPD's finding that there was adequate state protection was reasonable.

The Federal Court allowed the application. The court quashed the decision and returned the matter for reconsideration by a differently constituted RPD.

Aliens - Topic 1323.2

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Persecution - Protection of country of nationality or citizenship (internal flight alternative) - The applicant, a 77 year-old female, claimed refugee protection on the basis that she feared persecution in Hungary due to her Roma ethnicity - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the claim, finding that there was adequate state protection - The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application - Notwithstanding the applicant's clear statement that she feared the Hungarian Guard and that the state could not, or would not, protect her from attacks, the RPD engaged in a significant amount of discussion in its state protection analysis about matters such as employment and education, which had nothing to do with the applicant's case - As to the operational adequacy of the state's ability or willingness to protect the applicant against fascist and racist violence, the RPD said very little - The RPD's analysis ran counter to what the RPD was obliged to do, rendering the decision unreasonable - See paragraphs 53 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 19].

Aguebor v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Elmi et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 557; 2008 FC 773, refd to. [para. 20].

Wu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 574; 2009 FC 929, refd to. [para. 20].

Pacasum v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 589; 2008 FC 822, refd to. [para. 21].

Estrada et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 142; 2012 FC 279, refd to. [para. 21].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Abboud (2012), 403 F.T.R. 197; 2012 FC 72, refd to. [para. 21].

Hinzman et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 362 N.R. 1; 2007 FCA 171, refd to. [para. 21].

Sow v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 400 F.T.R. 91; 2011 FC 1313, refd to. [para. 22].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 22].

Alhayek v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 418 F.T.R. 144; 2012 FC 1126, refd to. [para. 22].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 424 N.R. 220; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 23].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 24].

Attakora v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 99 N.R. 168 (F.C.A.), refd. to. [para. 25].

Mahmud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 167 F.T.R. 309 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Ahortor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 65 F.T.R. 137 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Maldonado v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 2 F.C. 302; 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Mui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 587 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Ledezma et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 53 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hercegi et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 125; 2012 FC 250, refd to. [para. 27].

Varela v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 843; 2011 FC 1364, refd to. [para. 29].

Rezmuves et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 168; 2012 FC 334, refd to. [para. 29].

Alexandre-Dubois v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 109; 2011 FC 189, refd to. [para. 30].

Mohacsi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 231 F.T.R. 276; 2003 FCT 429, refd to. [para. 31].

Dominguez Hernandez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 939; 2007 FC 1211, refd to. [para. 32].

Toro v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1981] 1 F.C. 652 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Horvath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 398 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Cepeda-Gutierrez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Gondi et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 258; 2006 FC 433, refd to. [para. 35].

Jones v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 289; 2006 FC 405, refd to. [para. 35].

Elcock v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 175 F.T.R. 116 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Molnar et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 698; [2003] 2 F.C. 339; 2002 FCT 1081, refd to. [para. 37].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 38].

Cosgun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 225; 2010 FC 400, refd to. [para. 41].

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Villafranca (1992), 150 N.R. 232; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 334 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Kis et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 270; 2012 FC 606, refd to. [para. 44].

Velez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 620; 2010 FC 923, refd to. [para. 45].

Matte et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 409; 2012 FC 761, refd to. [para. 45].

Horvath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 127; 2012 FC 253, refd to. [para. 45].

Macias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 398; 2010 FC 598, refd to. [para. 46].

Dannett v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 766; 2006 FC 1363, refd to. [para. 46].

Kim et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 673; 2005 FC 1126, refd to. [para. 47].

Sanchez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 115; 2008 FC 134, refd to. [para. 47].

Paguada v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 195; 2009 FC 351, refd to. [para. 47].

Camacho et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 560; 2007 FC 830, refd to. [para. 48].

Parmar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 139 F.T.R. 203 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Moskvitchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] FCJ No. 1744 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Anaya Ayala v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 866; 2008 FC 1258, refd to. [para. 49].

Boulis v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1974] S.C.R. 875, refd to. [para. 49].

Hassan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Via Rail Canada Inc. v. National Transportation Agency et al., [2001] 2 F.C. 25; 261 N.R. 184, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 51].

Za'rour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 321 F.T.R. 120; 2007 FC 1281, refd to. [para. 51].

Trigueros Ayala et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 52; 2012 FC 183, refd to. [para. 51].

Veerasingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 119; 2012 FC 241, refd to. [para. 51].

Ragupathy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 350 N.R. 137; 2006 FCA 151, refd to. [para. 52].

Counsel:

Rocco Galati, for the applicant;

Bradley Bechard, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 5, 2012, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated November 21, 2012, at Ottawa, Ontario.