Date: 19981020
Docket: IMM-1285-98
BETWEEN:
HAMID ESMAIL TALAI
MONA ESMAIL TALAI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
WETSTON J.
[1] The applicants, both citizens of Iran, apply for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board") in which the Board found that the claimants were not Convention refugees. The applicants are father and daughter. Their claims are based on the father's fear of persecution for his political opinion. In its decision of March 2, 1998, the Board determined that the claimants lacked credibility. The Board stated that it found internal inconsistencies and implausibilities in the father's (Hamid Esmail's) evidence as well as inconsistencies with other evidence.
[2] Three main points arise in this case. First, the applicants submit that the Board erred when it found that the applicant's evidence that his wife had not signed the Declaration was contradicted by his wife's narrative, contained in her Personal Information Form (PIF), in which she stated that she had signed the Declaration. The applicant submits that he did not state that his wife had not signed the Declaration. He submits that he testified that his wife did sign the Declaration but that he had subsequently "whited out" her signature before copies were made.
[3] Second, the applicants submit that the Board erred in its failure to explain why it rejected the applicant's explanations concerning why he was able to continue his position as chief accountant and member of the Editorial Board of a major Iranian newspaper at the same time as his wife and her two sisters were imprisoned as suspected Mujahedeen supporters.
[4] Third, the applicants submit that the Board misconstrued the applicant's evidence concerning the leaking of information, in particular by finding that he had testified that a limited number of people in the news business generally knew of the leaked information. The applicant submits that he did not provide any indication of the number of people outside of his company who knew of the information. The applicant submits that as a result, the Board erred in its finding that it was implausible that the applicant had not been questioned by the authorities.
[5] I do not accept the applicant's argument that the Board erred with respect to points two and three. While the the Board erred in its finding that the applicant's evidence regarding his wife's signing of the Declaration was inconsistent, I am not satisfied that the error is sufficient for this Court to interfere with the decision of the Board. The finding of fact was not made in a perverse or capricious manner. My review of the decision in its totality suggests that this error would not have led the Board to another conclusion.
[6] Accordingly, this application is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Howard I. Wetston
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
October 20, 1998