Court File No. IMM-3352-96
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N:
FAVAD BASHIRIAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
_________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAMES JEROME
TRANSCRIPT OF REASONS
_________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Robert Blanshay for the Applicant
Mr. Jeremiah Eastman for the Respondent
HELD AT:
Courtroom No. 7
330 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
June 24, 1997
REASONS
I am not going to allow the application. My reasons are as follows.
This is a case in which the Board made a finding of adverse credibility and it cannot be interfered with where the Board makes it plain and as well, identifies the basis for that conclusion.
The conclusion is quite categorically stated on page 6 as follows, looking to the totality of the evidence:
| "The Panel does not believe that the Claimant participated at the Ghazvin demonstration, nor do we find the Claimant to be credible or trustworthy because of the above inconsistencies and implausibility." |
It is not that they think that he misled them about his injury. They think that he did not participate in the demonstration. That is major. Since this participation is essential to his claim, they dismiss it properly, in my opinion.
Now, the previous page, not only have they identified abundantly the reasons for their conclusion, but they have separated each of them under subtopics, le last of which appears on page 5, as far as the conduit relaying messages to his son, they say there are inconsistencies between him version orally and his documentary evidence, and that as well, in the conclusion paragraphs of that page 5. He says that why would he twice return to a scene where he had been at risk, that while he claims that authorities have been to their home four times, there is no evidence and indeed the indication in the evidence seems to be to the contrary.
That seems then to be three or four separate indications under just that one subtopic. Page 4 is devoted almost entirely to the second issue which is his second arrest. And similarly, they identify different discrepancies between his internal consistencies in his own testimony.
And then the primary is set out beginning at page 2 and all of page 3. Whether it be his recounting of the demonstration, it is plausible, reasonable. That is all entirely within the mandate and the responsibility of the tribunal and in my view, they have more than adequately supported their conclusion. They set the conclusions out quite clearly, and I would have reached the same conclusion.
But of course, it is not whether I would reach the same conclusion, but only whether the Board's conclusions are consistent with the evidence before them and with the law, and I find that they were.
And therefore, this application is dismissed. And my endorsement will be that for reasons given orally, the application is dismissed. Written reasons will be filed which I will file when I edit the transcript from today.