Horvath v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-5119-98
Reed J.
21/7/99
5 pp.
Application to set aside CRDD decision applicants not Convention refugees-Applicants Roma gypsies, citizens of Czech Republic-CRDD found they could obtain state protection within their country from ill treatment as gypsies-Evidence applicant had identified attackers to police, who refused to do anything-Board misconstrued evidence in finding applicant had been unable to identify aggressors to police-Significant error-Respondent argued misconstruction of evidence immaterial in view of evidence demonstrating state ability to protect: statements by President of Republic, First Minister, Minister of Justice denouncing racism-Application allowed-Statements by government leaders not reflecting careful analysis of evidence, analysis Board required to undertake: Sagharichi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 182 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.); Toledo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 206 (F.C.A.) (QL)-Also, other Board panels have found Roma from Czech Republic to be Convention refugees because of state inability to protect-After hearing, but before decision signed, applicants withdrew application-Board chose to ignore withdrawal, but, in decision, commented withdrawal additional evidence applicants not Convention refugees-Fundamental flaw in stating that withdrawal of claim signifies lack of genuineness, when individuals in question have not been asked why they filed withdrawal.