Date: 20030121
Docket: IMM-1761-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 25
Between:
NIMA ABBASI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board"), dated March 26, 2002, determining him not to be a Convention refugee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
The applicant is a citizen of Iran, from the city of Kermanshah. He alleges a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of political opinion, because at his father's film lab he developed photographs taken by a friend from Tehran of a student being beaten during the July 1999 demonstrations.
The applicant alleges that shortly after he developed the film, in August of 1999, he was taken into custody, detained, interrogated and beaten. He was then taken to court and, according to his Personal Information Form ("PIF"), found guilty of helping to produce anti-Islamic regime materials. In oral testimony, however, he said that the court merely declared that it would keep a file open on him.
The applicant further alleges that as a condition of his sentence, he had to report every Thursday to his local police station, where they would occasionally beat him, and where they shaved his head to make him look like an inmate.
The issues before the Board included personal identity, credibility, objective basis, and Internal Flight Alternative. The Board was satisfied that the applicant is who he claimed to be, but found that he failed to provide sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to support his refugee claim. The Board found the adverse credibility findings determinative of the claim and did not analyse the rest of the issues.
The applicant argues that the Board erred by making an adverse finding of credibility in an arbitrary manner or without giving reasons.
The Board is a specialized tribunal which can consider the plausibility and credibility of a testimony so long as the inferences which it draws from it are not unreasonable (Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)) and its grounds are explained clearly and comprehensibly (Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 15 Imm.L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.)).
In this case, the explanations given by the Board are clear and comprehensible, and the inferences which it drew from the applicant's testimony are not unreasonable.
There is an inconsistency between the applicant's PIF, where he states that he was manager of the lab from September 1997 to September 2000, and his oral evidence, where he testified that he did not work at the photo lab during the year after his arrest.
There is also an inconsistency between the date of issue of the applicant's passport provided in the PIF as February, 1999, and his testimony that he obtained his passport after being discharged from military service in November 1999. The applicant was unable to provide an explanation for the discrepancy. The Board was, therefore, justified in doubting his testimony that the passport was issued to him in November 1999, but that he was told at the time it was given to him that it was not valid and he would soon have to return it.
There is a discrepancy between the applicant's description in his PIF of the officers who came to his father's lab as wearing plain clothes, and his oral testimony that they were in uniform. However, at all times the applicant referred to them as officers and stated that he recognised them as police from what they were wearing and what they said. The inconsistency regarding their attire exists, but it is of minor importance.
There is a further discrepancy between the applicant's statement in his PIF that he was found guilty of helping to produce anti-Islamic regime materials and his oral testimony that his file was left open, that he was "not totally convicted". On the evidence before the Board at the hearing, it was not unreasonable for it to find the applicant's testimony on this point to be untrustworthy. The applicant's explanation given in his affidavit and memorandum of argument, that he did not understand the court system in Iran, was not before the Board at the time.
The Board found that, when the applicant was confronted with the discrepancy in his evidence that he had seen his parents before being detained, while previously having said that his father had moved to Kish, he began to improvise evidence. This appears to be a reasonable inference on a close reading of the transcript.
There is no evidence that the Board required the applicant to provide documentary evidence that he had been detained by the Iranian authorities. However, since the applicant chose to provide the putative letter from the Judicial Office of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Board was entitled to assign to it the weight it deemed appropriate.
The Board did not dispute the fact that the applicant underwent surgery for a broken nose. However, the applicant did not satisfy the Board that his nose was broken by the Iranian authorities. It was open to the Board to draw inferences on this issue with respect to the totality of the applicant's evidence.
The Board did not err in rejecting the applicant's evidence concerning how the authorities were able to trace the photographs to his father's lab. The Board explained that it did so because this important and relevant evidence had been omitted from the applicant's PIF, and he had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the omission. Although the PIF is supposed to be a brief recitation of a claim (Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (October 8, 1993), IMM-888-93), all relevant and important facts should be included in it (Basseghi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (December 6, 1994), IMM-2227-94).
The applicant argues that the issuance of a valid passport is not in itself a sign of the applicant's lack of credibility. However, the Board took issue with the applicant's story that he was issued an invalid passport, which, at the time of issuance, he was told would soon have to be returned. This factor was simply one of many which the Board considered in reaching its decision. That the Board may have taken improper notice of the Iranian government's policies on issuance of passports does not outweigh the other reasonable findings which the Board made.
For the reasons given above, and as the applicant has failed to establish 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 (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7), I am of the view that this Court ought not substitute its own appreciation of the facts for that made by such a specialized tribunal.
Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 21, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1761-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: NIMA ABBASI v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: December 12, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: January 21, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Negar Azmudeh FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Peter Bell FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
WLG Law Offices FOR THE APPLICANT
Vancouver, British Columbia
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario