Date: 19980226
Docket: IMM-1561-97
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD REZA GHARIB
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JOYAL, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated March 19, 1997. The Board decided that the applicant was not a Convention refugee under s.2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
The Facts:
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Iran, and comes from a family who have long been Shah sympathizers.
[3] During his university days, the applicant became involved in anti-government activities and participated in many demonstrations. In 1991, he became involved with a Mr. Jamshidi, a strong supporter of the Shah. He began attending meetings and assisting in the distribution of anti-government pamphlets.
[4] In 1994, a close friend of the applicant was arrested. Since they were both involved in the same political group, the applicant's house was later raided and searched. He was arrested and held for three days, then later released because no damaging evidence was found against him.
[5] In 1995, the applicant was advised that a demonstration was to take place the following day in a southern suburb of Teheran. He decided to participate and was later arrested in the course of rioting which erupted during the demonstration.
[6] While in detention, the applicant lied about his address. The police learned of this deception and held him for a week. Before his release, he was forced to sign a statement declaring his allegiance to the Islamic Regime and his awareness that if he should be apprehended again for anti-government activities, he would be subject to the maximum penalty.
[7] On July 25, 1995, the applicant attended a meeting of his pro-monarchist group. The meeting was raided by the Revolutionary Guard, but the applicant managed to escape and go into hiding. A few days later, he learned that his home had been raided and that his father and his wife had been interrogated as to his whereabouts. A friend told him that his life was in danger and that he should leave Iran.
[8] The applicant bribed someone to get an exit visa, and he left the country, with his passport, via the Mehrabad airport. He arrived in Canada on September 28, 1995, and claimed refugee status on December 5, 1995.
The Board's Decision:
[9] The Board first of all concluded that the applicant was not a member of a pro-monarchist group, this based on documentary evidence available to it which tended to dismiss the existence of any active monarchist group in Iran. The Board further found it difficult to believe that the applicant could leave Iran, through the airport and with his own passport, if he was, as per his allegations, the target of authorities and subject to possible arrest because of his anti-government activities. Finally, the Board concluded that the delay which occurred between the applicant's arrival in Canada and the date of his actual claim for refugee status was not compatible with a well founded fear of persecution.
Analysis:
In its decision, the Board noted that there is no documentary source as to the existence of the applicant's own group. In my view, that is not at all surprising, given the limited public profile that can be created by five or six people, distributing some 500 pamphlets once a month, in a megacity the size of Teheran. On that ground alone, it would have been open to the Board to accept with a large grain of salt the applicant's account of these activities and to conclude that his story of a raid and his narrow escape from the Revolutionary Guard, as well as of a later raid and search of his house, were simply unbelievable and implausible.
[10] Unfortunately, however, the Board seems to have entered into an argument with the applicant as to whether there was any evidence of monarchist activities in Iran. In fact, the Board devotes some six pages of its decision to a very thorough and learned analysis and assessment of the existence of such activities in Iran. In the end, it concluded that since there was no documentary evidence as to the existence of the applicant's particular political group, it simply did not exist.
[11] In my respectful view, that conclusion was not a requirement in a matter of credibility, and is deserving of my attention. That is not to say that the applicant's story is lacking in any element apt to raise a question or two. Indeed, there does appear to be some curious gaps in the applicant's story, possibly sufficient to justify the Board's conclusion that the applicant lacked credibility.
[12] Nevertheless, in the context of a credibility issue, its conclusion with respect to the absence of any monarchist activities in Iran is unreasonable and constitutes the kind of error which justifies my intervention. In essence, the Board may be right, but for the wrong reasons.
Conclusion:
[13] The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Board is quashed. The applicant is entitled to a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.
L-Marcel Joyal
J U D G E
O T T A W A, Ontario
February 26, 1998.