Peter et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 481 F.T.R. 10 (FC)

• Judge: Campbell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 05, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 481 F.T.R. 10 (FC);2015 FC 619

Peter v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 481 F.T.R. 10 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.059

Rozalia Peter, Szindi Lena Peter, Laszlo Jozsefne Bercze and Viktor Bercze (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-3933-14; 2015 FC 619)

Indexed As: Peter et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Campbell, J.

May 11, 2015.

Summary:

The applicants were members of a family composed of the principal claimant, her minor child, her common-law husband and his mother, all Romani citizens of Hungary. They claimed protection because of subjective and objective fear that, should they be required to return to Hungary, they would suffer more than a mere possibility of persecution under s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or probable risk under s. 97, at the hands of the Hungarian Guards and the principal claimant's former common-law husband, the father of the minor claimant. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) rejected their claim. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application. The decision was set aside and the matter was referred back for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

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 applicants were members of a family composed of the principal claimant, her minor child, her common-law husband and his mother, all Romani citizens of Hungary - They claimed protection because of subjective and objective fear that, should they be required to return to Hungary, they would suffer more than a mere possibility of persecution under s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or probable risk under s. 97 at the hands of the Hungarian Guards and the principal claimant's former common-law husband, the father of the minor claimant - The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) rejected their claim - The applicants applied for judicial review, arguing that the RPD's negative credibility findings of past persecution were perverse and that the RPD's finding that adequate state protection existed in Hungary was unintelligible - The Federal Court allowed the application - The court agreed with both of the applicants' arguments - The evaluation of the applicants' evidence was conducted in reviewable error - There was also no clear line of reasoning from the wealth of evidence that the state in Hungary did not provide adequate protection to Roma at the operational level, to the RPD's conclusion that it did - The reasoning leading to the conclusion was unintelligible - As a result, the RPD's finding that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection was not reasonable, and the decision under review was not defensible in respect of the facts and law.

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection - Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - [See Aliens - Topic 1323.2 ].

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection - Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - The Federal Court stated that "To find that a person is lying is a serious matter. Convincing reasons must support reaching such a conclusion. It is not every contradiction, discrepancy, or inconsistency that can ground such a finding. Each such incident must be carefully considered in the context in which it arises to reasonably and fairly determine whether its existence is evidence going to prove that a lie has been, or is being, told. If such a conclusion is reached, the reasons for reaching it must be carefully and clearly explained" - See paragraph 7.

Cases Noticed:

Maldonado v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 2 F.C. 302; 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Hilo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 130 N.R. 236; 15 Imm. L.R.(2d) 199 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Zakhour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 722; 2011 FC 1178, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

James Gildiner, for the applicants;

Prathima Prashad, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

James Gildiner, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

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

This application was heard on May 5, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario, before Campbell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on May 11, 2015.