ZSOLT CSERMAK Applicant v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2013 FC 631

Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20130613 Docket: IMM-8764-12 Citation: 2013 FC 631 Ottawa, Ontario, this 13 th day of June 2013 Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard BETWEEN: ZSOLT CSERMAK Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Rena Dhir, member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the “Board”), pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 (the “Act”).

The Board dismissed the applicant’s claim for refugee protection, concluding he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Act. [ 2 ] The applicant is a 36-year-old citizen of Hungary. His mother was an ethnic Roma and his father was an ethnic Hungarian.

The applicant alleges that he suffered persecution by reason of his Roma ethnicity. [ 3 ] The Board found the applicant to be generally credible in relation to the personal basis of his claim, but did not find that the applicant had established serious grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution on the Convention ground of race. [ 4 ] The determinative issue for the Board was that the applicant’s experiences did not rise to the level of persecution.

The Board accepted that the applicant suffered discrimination and was a victim of random attacks by skinheads, but found that there was not sufficient evidence that his problems were systemic.

At best, they were random attacks over a few times in his life. [ 5 ] The Board also found that the applicant had failed to provide credible evidence that Hungary, a democratic country, is unable to protect him, that the applicant had a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] available to him in Debrecen or Miskolc and that it was not objectively unreasonable for the applicant to seek refuge in those cities. * * * * * * * *

[6] The fundamental issue raised by the applicant in this application is whether the Board erred in finding that the applicant didnot suffer persecution in relation to his employment in Hungary. [7] The applicant submits the Board ignored or misconstrued evidence in finding that he was able to secure three differentconsecutive jobs in Hungary and that the applicant’s inability to find employment upon his return to Hungary would not be based on hisrace. [8] The applicant further submits that the Board provided inadequate reasons for finding that there was no credible evidence thatthe applicant was subjected to severe discrimination which harmed his ability to obtain education or employment in Hungary.

Theapplicant did not directly challenge the Board’s findings on the existence of state protection and an IFA. [9] The Board’s finding that the discrimination faced by the applicant did not amount to persecution is a question of mixed factand law reviewable on the standard of reasonableness (Kaleja v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2010 FC 252 at para 19;Ferencova v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2011 FC 443 at para 8). [10] When reviewing a decision on the reasonableness standard, the Court must determine whether the Board’s findings fall withinthe “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC9 , [2008] 1SCR 190 at para 47).

Although there may be more than one possible outcome, as long as the Board’s decision-making process was justified, transparent and intelligible, a reviewing court cannot substitute its own view of a preferable outcome(Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 SCR 339 at para 59). * * * * * * * * [11] Upon reviewing the evidence in light of the above principles, I find that it was entirely reasonable for the Board to concludethat the applicant had not suffered persecution in relation to his employment given that he had been continuously employed from 1996 to2010 before he came to Canada.

Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, I note that the Board specifically considered the evidence thatthe applicant had been paid less than ethnic Hungarians who held the same position. However, I agree with the respondent that thedifferential pay did not rise to the level of persecution.

In my view, the applicant has failed to show the existence of an error by the Boardwhich would warrant the intervention of the Court. [12] As the Board’s finding that the applicant has not suffered persecution in relation to his employment is determinative of thisapplication for judicial review, it will not be necessary to deal with the Board’s finding concerning state protection and an IFA. [13] For the above-mentioned reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. [14] I agree with counsel for the parties that this is not a matter for certification.

JUDGMENT The application for judicial review of the decision of a member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration andRefugee Board of Canada, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, is dismissed. “Yvon Pinard”

Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8764-12 STYLE OF CAUSE: ZSOLT CSERMAK v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver , British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: May 1, 2013 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: Pinard J. DATED: June 13, 2013 APPEARANCES : Me Roger Bhatti FOR THE APPLICANT Me François Paradis FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Roger S. Bhatti FOR THE APPLICANT Surrey , British Columbia

William F. Pentney FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada