Ryvina v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 483 F.T.R. 98 (FC)

• Judge: Annis, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 14, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 483 F.T.R. 98 (FC);2015 FC 764

Ryvina v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 483 F.T.R. 98 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.052

Lidia Ryvina (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1772-14; 2015 FC 764)

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

Federal Court

Annis, J.

June 18, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant was a citizen of Russia. She alleged that she and her late husband were persecuted by anti-Semitic elements in Russia. The Refugee Protection Division determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

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 was a citizen of Russia - She alleged that she and her late husband were persecuted by anti-Semitic elements in Russia - The Refugee Protection Division determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court found no reviewable error in the Board's conclusions that the state protection for the applicant was adequate in Russia - The court stated that "There were similar inconsistencies or serious shortcomings in the [applicant's] son's testimony regarding her efforts to seek state protection. In addition, the Board Member's review of the evidence of the actions taken by the Russian government at the legislative level and operational level to combat anti-Semitism and extremism was sufficient to support his conclusion that there is adequate state protection in Russia and that there were positive signs of progress" - See paragraph 48.

Aliens - Topic 1334

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review - The Refugee Protection Division determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The applicant applied for judicial review - The issues were 1. whether the Board Member erred in his appointment of the Designated Representative; 2. whether the Board Member erred in his assessment of the applicant's credibility; and 3. whether the Board erred in the state protection analysis - The Federal Court stated that "The first issue raises questions of procedural fairness and natural justice, which are to be reviewed on the correctness standard ... However, I adopt the hybrid standard recently enunciated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v National Energy Board, 2014 FCA 245 ... which provides that while the procedural fairness issue is to be determined on the correctness standard, but the Court must give some deference to the Board's procedural choices ... It is well-established that the Board's credibility findings are reviewed on the reasonableness standard ... The Board's assessment of state protection involves questions of mixed fact and law and is also reviewable in a standard of reasonableness" - See paragraphs 27 to 29.

Aliens - Topic 4047

Practice - Persons under disability - Designated representative (incl. duty to appoint) - The applicant was an 83 year old citizen of Russia - She alleged that she and her late husband were persecuted by anti-Semitic elements in Russia - The Refugee Protection Division determined that the applicant was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The applicant applied for judicial review - One issue was whether the Board Member erred in his appointment of the applicant's son as her designated representative - The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's arguments that the Board Member did not adhere to or properly apply the requirements for designating her son as a representative to testify on her behalf - The applicant was having difficulty relating her narrative and both her counsel and the Member recognized this problem - After the Board Member's initial offer to have the son testify on the applicant's narrative and after she had further difficulty in testifying, her counsel requested that the son act as her representative - It was agreed that it would be in her best interest for him to testify to relate her narrative - The Board Member ensured that the applicant remained involved in the events by rejecting her counsel's suggestion that the proceedings be conducted in English, or that she should not sit beside her son while he testified - The applicant understood that she was there to advise her son as he testified - See paragraphs 32 to 45.

Cases Noticed:

Khela v. Mission Institution (Warden) et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502; 455 N.R. 279; 351 B.C.A.C. 91; 599 W.A.C. 91; 2014 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 27].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 27].

Forest Ethics Advocacy Association et al. v. National Energy Board et al. (2014), 465 N.R. 152; 246 A.C.W.S.(3d) 191; 2014 FCA 245, refd to. [para. 27].

Re: Sound v. Fitness Industry Council of Canada et al. (2014), 455 N.R. 87; 2014 FCA 48, refd to. [para. 27].

Maritime Broadcasting System Ltd. v. Canadian Media Guild (2014), 455 N.R. 115; 373 D.L.R.(4th) 167; 2014 FCA 59, refd to. [para. 27].

Aguebor v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315; 42 A.C.W.S.(3d) 886 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Singh (Jora) v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 169 N.R. 107; 47 A.C.W.S.(3d) 799 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Hinzman et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 290 F.T.R. 8; 2006 FC 420, affd. (2007), 362 N.R. 1; 2007 FCA 171, refd to. [para. 29].

Rusznyak et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 99; 2014 FC 255, refd to. [para. 29].

Bari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 356; 2014 FC 862, refd to. [para. 29].

Varon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 121 2015 FC 356, refd to. [para. 29].

Espinoza et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 164 F.T.R. 194 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 759; 2008 FC 1052, refd to. [para. 46].

Fatih v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 415 F.T.R. 82; 2012 FC 857, refd to. [para. 46].

Guarin Caicedo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 732; 2010 FC 1092, refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 167(1), sect. 170 [para. 30].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, rule 20(1), rule 20(4), rule 20(5), rule 20(9), rule 20(10) [para. 31].

Refugee Protection Division Rules - see Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Krassina Kostadinov, for the applicant, Lidia Ryvina;

Suranjana Bhattacharyya, for the respondent, The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Solicitors of Record:

Claire Crummey, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Lidia Ryvina;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

This application was heard on April 14, 2015, at Toronto, Ontario, before Annis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 18, 2015.