14. First, even if one accepts the Respondent's claim that the South African police are not interested in protecting whites, it still remains that the first two attacks on the Respondent occurred in 1991 and 1992[1] when white minority rule under apartheid was still in place in South Africa.[2]
[1.] Although the Board states that the first two attacks on occurred in 1991 the Respondent writes in his PIF Narrative that the second attack on him occurred in 1992.
[2.] See 1992 count Report on Human Rights for South Africa jointly issued by Committee on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate. Application Record, p. 275
The Respondent's failure to report the attacks on him is not explained by his alleged belief that the South African police were not interested in protecting whites. The police and other major internal security services were controlled by the apartheid state whose raison d'être was the protection and perpetuation of the privileged position of the white minority and the suppression of the democratic aspirations of the Black, Indian and ‘Coloured' majority population.
15. There was no evidence before the Board on which it could have reasonably concluded that the white internal security regime that was in power at the time in South Africa would have not been interested in protecting a white person who had allegedly been assaulted by blacks.[3] Thus, the Respondent's failure to report the attacks on him in 1991 and 1992 when apartheid was still in force in South Africa ought to have been considered by the Board in its state protection analysis and the failure to do so constitute a reviewable error.
[3] South Africa's first democratic elections took place in 1994.
16. Second, the Respondent's failure to report any of the alleged post-apartheid attacks on him because of his belief that the South African police are not interested in protecting whites does not withstand scrutiny. Indeed, his own family seems to have had no difficulty in reporting to the same police service the alleged robbery in 2005 in which the robbers stole a TV set, some clothes and some money from the Respondent's father's house. The police not only responded to his father's complaint but also investigated the crime, although no one was charged in the end. This, however, is not evidence of lack of, or the absence of, effective state protection, for as Pelletier, J. (as he then was) noted in Zhuravlvev [A]II policing activity is bound to encounter failures, particularly in a democratic state. Even in Canada, random acts of vandalism or violence seldom yield convictions."
The 'white doctors' did not get into Canada by being granted asylum under false statements, they immigrated via legal & fair channels.