Date: 20030710
Docket: IMM-929-02
Citation: 2003 FC 862
OTTAWA, Ontario, this 10th day of July, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
BETWEEN:
BABAK ALIZADEH SEPEHRI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the ARefugee Division@), dated February 8, 2002, wherein the applicant was declared not to be Convention refugee as defined in the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the AAct@).
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Iran who claims to fear persecution from security authorities based on his pro-monarchist political opinion and his pro-monarchist family. While in highschool he was detained and interrogated about the activities of his family. He was later expelled from school and joined the army to fulfill Iran=s compulsory military service requirement. When his mother and sister left Iran in 1994 and claimed refugee status in Canada, the applicant was roughed up and questioned on his family=s whereabouts by the political and ideological section of the army. His mother and sister were granted refugee status in Canada and sponsored his father=s application for permanent residence in 1998.
[3] The applicant was discharged from the army in 1996 and married Fahimed Azad, the daughter of a pro-monarchist, on March 26, 2000. The applicant also kept in contact with Dr. Ghadir, a friend of his parents who was active in monarchist circles. On May 5, 2000 the applicant visited Dr. Ghadir=s house and was concerned when there was no answer. As he was returning home, the applicant was attacked by four men who also searched his place and beat his wife. The applicant was detained for 45 days and interrogated about the activities of his family and Dr. Ghadir. He was forced to sign an undertaking and was released. He was later told by Dr. Ghadir=s mother, who had also been arrested, that her son had confessed to political activities on behalf of the monarchists. She insisted the applicant flee as he would be seen as a collaborator. He left Iran the next day and claimed refugee status when he arrived in Canada on September 18, 2000.
[4] Upon his arrival in Canada, the applicant was reunited with his family and learned that the authorities in Iran have accused him of being an anti-revolutionary, that they interrogated his wife and are still interested in his whereabouts. In September 2001 the applicant=s wife joined him in Canada.
[5] The applicant=s claim was rejected by the Refugee Division due to credibility concerns. The panel found the applicant=s testimony to be Avague, off-point and confusing@, as well as Aimplausible and inconsistent.@ It concluded that he engaged in Aembellishment, generalities and speculation.@ The panel relied upon a number of findings to support its conclusion, including:
(1) the applicant had little knowledge of Dr. Ghadir=s activities and his relationship with Dr. Ghadir was not political in nature;
(2) given his peripheral relationship with Dr. Ghadir, it was implausible that he was of interest to the authorities;
(3) during his testimony, the applicant stated he saw Dr. Ghadir distributing leaflets, but did not mention the incident in his PIF;
(4) there was no credible evidence that the authorities would suddenly be interested in Dr. Ghadir after years of alleged political activities;
(5) it was inconceivable that Dr. Ghadir would confess to a political relationship with the applicant when he had taken precautions to prevent the applicant from becoming involved in his political activities;
(6) it was implausible that Dr. Ghadir=s elderly mother would be arrested, know of her son=s confession, contact the applicant on the day of her release and be able to arrange for his removal in such a short time; and,
(7) the applicant did not mention to the immigration officer at the port of entry his perceived political association with Dr. Ghadir or his arrest.
[6] The Refugee Division also gave no weight to a medical report stating the applicant had scars from knife wounds on his back from the May 5, 2000 attack as it found the PIF upon which the report was based to be not credible or trustworthy.
[7] The applicant is seeking to have the Refugee Division=s decision set aside because it erred in determining the applicant was not credible. The applicant submits the panel erred by rejecting the medical report, by finding the actions of Iranian authorities and Dr. Ghadir=s mother were implausible without evidence to that effect, and by failing to give his evidence the benefit of the doubt. Most of his argument is devoted to the implausibility findings, which he argues are not in the Aheartland@ of the Refugee Division=s expertise as they are based on extrinsic criteria such as common sense.
[8] Credibility findings are entitled to considerable deference before this Court and will not be interfered with unless they are patently unreasonable: Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1194 at para. 4. Moreover, the Refugee Division is in the best position to assess the plausibility of testimony and the same test for intervention is applied regardless of whether the issue is plausibility or credibility: Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.). Adverse findings of credibility based on implausibilities must be based on Areasonably drawn inferences@ and not conjecture or mere speculation: Kalonda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 396; and Wei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 285.
[9] The Refugee Division did not commit any reviewable errors that justify this Court=s intervention. The panel=s finding was reasonable and supported by a wealth of reasons. As is demonstrated by the list above, this is not a case where the panel simply drew a conclusion and did not provide particulars of why it did not find the applicant=s claim to be credible. It was also open to the Refugee Division to accord no weight to the medical report. The report confirms the existence of a scar on the applicant=s back that could be from a knife, but is not sufficient evidence to link the scar to an incident of persecution.
[10] Further, the panel did not err by relying upon implausibilities to reject the claim. Unlike the claimants in Kalonda, supra and Kong v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 101 (T.D.) (QL), the applicant was not asked by the panel to speculate about the actions of the authorities. The implausibilities identified by the panel were based upon incomplete or inconsistent information provided by the applicant in his testimony. For example, the applicant stated at the hearing that his relationship with Dr. Ghadir was irregular and not political in nature. The applicant knew little about Dr. Ghadir=s activities and
stated that he had never been involved in Dr. Ghadir=s political activities. It was reasonable for the panel to rely upon this testimony to cast doubt upon the veracity of the applicant=s allegation that the authorities attacked him, searched his house and then detained him for 45 days because of his relationship with Dr. Ghadir. This is part of the normal process of evaluating a claimant=s story and does not constitute a reviewable error.
[11] Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties have not proposed any questions for certification. No questions will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
AMichael A. Kelen@ _______________________________
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-929-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: BABAK ALIZADEH SEPEHRI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: July 8, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
DATED: July 10, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Micheal Crane
For the Applicant
Marcel Larouche
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Micheal Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030710
Docket: IMM-929-02
BETWEEN:
BABAK ALIZADEH SEPEHRI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER