TA3-18725

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD LA COMMISSION DE L'IMMIGRATION (REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION) ET DU STATUT DE RÉFUGIÉ (SECTION DE LA PROTECTION DES RÉFUGIÉS)

IN PRIVATE

HUIS CLOS TA3-18725 CLAIMANT(S) DEMANDEUR(S)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX DATE(S) OF HEARING DATE(S) DE L'AUDIENCE August 8, 2004 September 26, 2005 DATE OF DECISION DATE DE LA DÉCISION October 11, 2005

CORAM CORAM David Cooke FOR THE CLAIMANT(S) POUR LE(S) DEMANDEUR(S) Patricia Ritter Barrister and Solicitor REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER AGENT DE PROTECTION DES RÉFUGIÉS Nil DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE REPRÉSENTANT DÉSIGNÉ Nil MINISTER'S COUNSEL CONSEIL DE LA MINISTRE Nil "You can obtain, within 72 hours, a translation or a copy of these reasons for decision in the other official language by writing to the Editing and Translation Services Directorate of the IRB, 344 Slater Street, 14th floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K1 or by sending a request to the following e-mail address: translation.traduction@irb.gc.ca or to facsimile number (613) 947-3213." "Vous pouvez obtenir la traduction ou une copie de ces motifs de décision dans l'autre langue officielle dans les 72 heures, en vous adressant par écrit à la Direction des services de révision et de traduction de la CISR, 344, rue Slater, 14e étage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0K1, par courrier électronique à l'adresse suivante : translation.traduction@cisr.gc.ca ou par télécopieur au (613) 947-3213." TA3-18725 XXXXX XXXXX (the claimant) is a 61-year-old citizen of Poland, who came to Canada in XXXXX 1998 to join his two brothers when, apparently, his marriage fell apart. The hearing for this claim was held pursuant to section 170(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (IRPA). The claimant was picked up in XXXXX 2003 on an immigration

warrant and it is only when this occurred that he decided to make his refugee claim. In the meantime, his wife obtained a divorce in a Polish court in 2002, which called for maintenance payments for his son and he made those maintenance payments, so he tells the panel, until his son ceased to be a dependent. From 1982 to 1986, the claimant was a XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX in XXXXX. The claimant substantiates all the above information, with documents, and the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities that they are true. The rest of the claimant's story is told without any corroborating evidence. The claimant tells us that from XXXXX XXXXX to XXXXX XXXXX, a period in excess of XXXXX years, he worked as an XXXXX XXXXX for the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX in XXXXX. His job was to XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, the XXXXX. He worked in what he called "XXXXX". The claimant tells us that while he was doing this "XXXXX" using, in part, the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, decided to make XXXXX XXXXX. Following the arrests, the claimant was asked to XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. This, of course, would "XXXXX XXXXX" but we have to assume that the police had decided, by this time, that his work would change. In fact, he tells us that he had been the subject of a "XXXXX" and that he and his superiors were concerned that he was no longer of value as an XXXXX

XXXXX. The claimant tells us that all this happened in XXXXX and that the trial lasted from XXXXX until XXXXX. His superior basically gave him instructions to "make himself scarce," until it was time for XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. He argued with his superior in that he did not want to XXXXX XXXXX. Then, apparently, he disappeared. He went to Lithuania, came home to Poland and then, joined his family in a trip to Canada in which his mother had obtained visas for the whole family in order to attend his brother's wedding. The rest of the family went home after the wedding, but the claimant disappeared in Canada. The claimant has very little information as to what happened at the trial. He tells the panel that "our work was considered a total disaster." He does not know what happened to the people who were XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX although he was anxious to point out that XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX were eventually charged with other matters. This is roughly what the panel thinks the claimant is trying to get across. The claimant's evidence was vague and inconsistent. He was tripped up on dates on several occasions, not only by the panel, but by his own counsel. For instance, in his Personal Information Form2 (PIF) he says that the XXXXX continued to pay him until XXXXX 1998, even although they lost track of him in XXXXX 1997. At the hearing, he informed us that he continued to

receive pay until the fall of 1998 when, while he was in Canada, the money was being received by his wife and presumably used to help support his family. On another occasion, he told the panel that he had spent seven months in Lithuania. When it became impossible to account for that seven months, he professed to deny that and not to remember. The claimant tells the panel that the trial XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX yet he was unable to even give his own knowledge of its outcome. As was pointed out above, the panel has been given absolutely no supporting documentation whatsoever regarding any of the claimant's XXXXX XXXXX from 1990, through and including the apparently disastrous trial, which is supposed to have finished in XXXXX. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that none of the so-called XXXXX XXXXX occurred. The claimant may well have been a XXXXX XXXXX of some sort during that time. He may well have been XXXXX XXXXX of some sort during that time. But the claimant has not shown the panel on the balance of probabilities that any of the events he said occurred in that time, in fact, did occur. Should the panel be wrong on this point, it is still clear from the claimant's own testimony that he has had no contact with his police superiors since sometime in XXXXX. Apparently, he did not even formally cease his work as a XXXXX XXXXX. He tells the panel that he is

afraid that the police would not be prepared to protect him because they suspect him of criminal activity. He is not prepared to tell panel what, if any, criminal activity might have raised their suspicions. The claimant tells the panel, he is afraid of the XXXXX, and yet he has done nothing to anger the XXXXX. In his own words, the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX trial was "a total disaster" and he in fact, was never available to give evidence at trial. If the XXXXX were seriously interested in him, surely they could have found him in, hiding out with his brothers in Canada by now. The panel acknowledges that there are serious criminal problems in Poland and notes that the government is taking rigorous action to deal with them, including an increase in the laying of charges, including an aggressive approach to a witness protection program for civilian witnesses.3 If the government is prepared to do this much for civilian witnesses, surely they would be prepared to be of assistance to a XXXXX XXXXX who had spent more than a XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX on their behalf. The claimant has never given the government the opportunity to show its willingness in this regard. The claimant has the burden of presenting "clear and convincing confirmation" of Poland's inability to protect him. Surely, in a situation such as this he has an obligation to approach his own superiors and seek the protection,

which the panel finds, would reasonably be forthcoming. The claimant is not a Convention refugee. Having so found, it is still necessary duty for the panel to determine whether or not there is a specific risk to the life of the claimant should he return to Poland. The claimant was not able to provide any logical argument as to why any specific people in Poland, such as XXXXX members, would wish to seek him out at this late date in order to conduct a homicide. In fact, the fact that he has been so uncooperative with his own employers would surely not be something that the XXXXX would want to punish by killing him. The claimant is not a person in need of protection. "David Cooke" David Cooke DATED at Toronto this eleventh day of October, 2005. REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / OCCUPATIONS / MILITARY GOVERNMENT / ILLEGAL ENTRY / WARRANT / ARREST / PROTECTION ELSEWHERE / EVASION / STATE PROTECTION / MALE / NEGATIVE / POLAND 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 2 Exhibit C-3. 3 Exhibit R/A-1, RPD Information Package, April 2004, item 7.4, Response to Information Request, number POL40626.E, December 18, 2002. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 5 TA3-18725