Date: 20001110
Docket: IMM-5874-99
Between :
DAGHIGHI SADEGH Morad
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated November 3, 1999, in which the Board determined he was not a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant, a 30-year-old citizen of Iran, claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion and his membership in a particular social group (family).
[3] At the hearing before me, counsel for the applicant who had first submitted that the Board concluded that family identity did not fall under the category of membership in a particular social group and that this was an error on its part, acknowledged that the alleged "error" is simply one due to an erroneous translation of the Board's reasons from English to French.
[4] The applicant's submission relates, therefore, to the Board's credibility finding under the political opinion category. In that regard, the Board pointed to a number of inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's testimony, the most important being outlined as follows :
| [-] The applicant was not able to provide a clear, articulate statement of the Fedayeen's objectives, principles or structures, either nationally or locally. He could say little more about the party than it sought "liberty and the freedom of expression". At no time did he mention socialism, democracy, social justice or peace, which were essential objectives and principles of the party. |
| [-] The Board found it implausible that the applicant would have taken such a dangerous activity as the transportation of contraband pamphlets without more knowledge of the party or of Ibrahim, his brother's friend. |
| [-] The Board also cited an inconsistency in the applicant's testimony pertaining to the pamphlets he was transporting. He had stated not having seen the pamphlets, then declared that they were signed by the president of the Fedayeen. He said he had seen an emblem on the pamphlets, yet was not able to describe it. His testimony on this issue was not forthcoming. |
| [-] The Board found it unlikely that the truck would have been searched for four hours at a regular control point, and that it would have taken the police this long to find the pamphlets which were in a box, hidden in the back of the truck along with other merchandise. |
| [-] On the basis of documentary evidence on security services in Iran, the Board found it improbable that the police, after having found the pamphlets, would have allowed the applicant to remain on conditional release without trial or further police interrogation for nearly six months prior to his leaving the country, regardless of the payment of a bribe. |
| [-] The Board also found it unlikely that the applicant's parents would be allowed to legally exit and re-enter Iran shortly after the applicant had been arrested and charged with the possession of subversive materials. |
| [-] Finally, the applicant's entire account of his work for the Fedayeen is contradicted by the documentary evidence which states that the Fedayeen are no longer active in Iran and that the few remaining members are in Europe. |
[5] The Board also noted that the applicant's evidence was contradicted by statements he had given to Immigration officials during interviews at the Port-of-entry such as his uncertainty as to his brother's involvement with the Mujahadeen organization - he did not mention his brother's or his own involvement with the Fedayeen organization. He explained this inconsistency by stating that he was tired and nervous at the time, however, given the importance of this factor, it seems unlikely he'd have forgotten to mention it at that time.
[6] Upon reviewing the evidence, I find that the above inconsistencies and implausibilities are generally well supported by the evidence. Therefore, I cannot find that the applicant has succeeded in establishing that the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). In Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315, Décary J.A., writing for the Federal Court of Appeal, described the restraint that must be applied in respect of a finding of credibility by this specialized tribunal, at page 316:
| There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review. In Giron, the court merely observed that in the area of plausibility, the unreasonableness of a decision may be more palpable, and so more easily identifiable, since the account appears on the face of the record. In our opinion, Giron in no way reduces the burden that rests on an appellant, of showing that the inferences drawn by the Refugee Division could not reasonably have been drawn. In this case, the appellant has not discharged this burden. |
[7] As the tribunal's perception that the applicant is not a credible witness effectively amounts to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which it could allow his claim (Sheikh v. Canada
(M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 at 244), the intervention of this Court is unwarranted and the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 10, 2000