Date: 20030321
Docket: IMM-953-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 322
BETWEEN:
ARMEN SARKISSIAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of, and an order setting aside, a decision by a Visa Officer of the Canadian Embassy in Berlin, dated January 31, 2001, refusing his application for permanent residence in Canada as a Convention refugee seeking resettlement.
[2] The applicant and his family left Iran, his native country, in November 1996. In Germany, he sought asylum as a Convention refugee and he now seeks resettlement for himself and his family. He claims to fear persecution in Iran because of his nationality (Armenian), his religion (Christian), and his political opinion as a member of a monarchist group in Germany which
advocates elimination of the current Iranian regime. He was interviewed in January 2001 at the Embassy in Berlin. The letter refusing his application said in part:
I note that your reasons given for fleeing Iran in November 1996 were based on your belonging to the Armenian Christian minority in Iran and on the fact that your family was considered as monarchist supporters due to your father's former employment under the Shah regime. You stated that although you had never been politically active yourself and did not demonstrate a significant political awareness or strong political opinion you had been repeatedly interrogated by the current regime and even detained several times for short periods in 1995 and 1996. Your account of your problems which caused you to leave your home country was vague, unsubstantiated, lacking in detail and a convincing chronology. In addition, the sequence of events you had described that lead (sic) to your leaving was contradicted by the fact that your Schengen visa for France was obtained in October 1996 (ie prior to the incident that allegedly prompted you to leave.) I also noted that you had German translations of your professional documents prepared and a translation into English of your Christianity certificates prepared in Tehran also prior to the incident which caused you to leave the country. Although I gave you the opportunity during your interview to explain this inconsistency, I was not satisfied by your explanation given. As such, I am not convinced that the reasons you have given for leaving Iran in November 1996 with valid Iranian passports and a valid Schengen visa are genuine.
As such, you have not established convincing grounds for fearing persecution and you cannot be considered a convention refugee. A senior immigration officer has reviewed this decision.
[3] In considering the application, the visa officer also considered the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations. The letter advising of refusal of the application also stated:
During the interview you were given the opportunity to describe what you had to fear if you were to return to Iran. You stated fearing execution or severe punishment upon return due to having become members of the Neghahbane Iran Djawid (N.I.D.) in Germany. Although you stated that you had become members upon arrival in Germany, you have written confirmation of membership from February 1999. The only activities you described were that you have taken part in protests in front of the Iranian Embassy in Bonn and feared that this may be known to Iranian officials. Reliable information reports, including information from our office in Tehran, do not support your fear that simple members of exile monarchist organizations suffer from persecution or human rights violations upon return. Furthermore, reliable country reports such as the U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report for 1999, released on February 25, 2000 and Human Rights Watch do not indicate that the Armenian Christian minority is subjected to a massive violation of human rights. You were also unable to give any convincing examples of this yourselves. As such, and in view of the fact that you have not convinced me that your stated reasons for leaving Iran are credible, you have not convincingly established that you have reason to fear a massive violation of human rights upon return to Iran. As a result, you do not meet the definition of a member of the "asylum country class".
The applicant alleged that he had been detained and beaten on the very day of his marriage in November 1996 and this had caused him to flee Iran. As the letter notes, the officer did not find his story and his explanation credible in light of his having obtained valid travel documents, including passports and a visa for France before the incident which allegedly prompted him to leave Iran. Thus, the officer's assessment was that the applicant did not qualify as a convention refugee since his explanation of the fear of persecution which led him to flee Iran was not found to be credible. Moreover, in assessing the situation under the humanitarian designated class resignations, the officer determined that there was no objective basis for his alleged fear of returning to Iran. That conclusion was based on "reliable country reports" that did not support his fear that ordinary members of exile monarchist organizations suffer persecution on their return to Iran..
For the applicant, it is urged that the visa officer violated the duty of fairness in relying on extrinsic evidence without producing copies of that evidence for the applicant to respond to and further that the visa officer ignored relevant evidence and thus made an unreasonable decision.
By her affidavit, the officer concedes that she did not produce to the applicant at the interview copies of the documents upon which she relied in determining that there was no objective basis for his claim to fear persecution if he were returned to Iran. Her letter names two of those sources of information and her affidavit names a third background paper. By her affidavit, the officer says that as was her practice she listed for him the "reliable background sources", which were publicly available documents on country conditions in Iran. These did not support an objective basis for his fear. In cross-examination on her affidavit, the officer also referred to a message from a colleague at the Canadian Embassy in Iran, the essence of which she says was made available to the applicant at the interview.
In my opinion, where the officer's concerns arising from extrinsic evidence consisting of reports that are in the main publicly available, and the essence is stated of all concerns arising from those reports relied upon with an opportunity for the applicant to respond at his interview, the visa officer's failure to produce the documents in question does not constitute unfairness. In this case, the conclusion which the officer reached about conditions in Iran, though different than those the claimant alleged, was supportable on the evidence before the officer.
As for the second ground raised by the applicant, the failure of the officer to review irrelevant evidence appears to concern two elements. The first is a portion of an Amnesty International document, upon which the visa officer relied, which was supportive of the applicant's view of circumstances facing returnees to Iran. But that was not the only reference to those conditions in the documents; other references differed. The second element of evidence which it is said the officer failed to consider consisted of newspaper and other information in possession of the applicant, concerning the activities of the political organization in which the applicant claimed to have been involved in Germany. That organization was supportive of restoring a monarchial regime in Iran. The visa officer's letter makes clear she was aware of this and had considered the matter, but did not consider the applicant's role particularly significant as it had consisted solely of participation in demonstrations outside the Iranian Embassy in Berlin. The applicant claimed that he would have been perceived by Iranian Embassy representatives and thus would be subject to persecution if he were to return to Iran. The officer refused to consider the materials that the applicant produced. She did not consider them relevant to determining the circumstances that the applicant might face on his return to Iran. Those circumstances, on the basis of other information, she concluded did not include a likelihood of persecution.
The primary basis for the officer's decision was her determination that there was not credible evidence that the applicant feared persecution when he left Iran, and that being the case he did not qualify as a Convention refugee. Whatever assessment may have been made by others of his claim, the primary basis for his application to come to Canada was as a convention refugee. No persuasive argument is raised by the applicant about the officer's credibility finding. That funding warrants deference by the Court and there is no basis to intervene.
In the circumstances, an order goes dismissing the application for judicial review.
Neither party suggested that the case raised a serious question of general importance for consideration for certification pursuant to paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. No question is certified.
(signed) W. Andrew MacKay
______________________________
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
March 21, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-953-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: ARMEN SARKISSIAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: MacKAY J.
DATED: March 21, 2003.
APPEARANCES BY: Ms. Chantel Desloges
For the Applicant
Mr. Stephen Gold
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms. Chantel Desloges
Green & Speigel
390 Bay St.
Suite 2800
Toronto, ON
M5H 2Y2
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent