PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ruslan Safarov is a medical doctor from Azerbaijan, who sought refugee protection in Canada based upon the persecution that he says that he encountered as a result of his alleged involvement with the opposition Musavat Party. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Dr. Safarov’s claim on the basis that he was not credible.
[2] Dr. Safarov now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that each of the Board’s six primary findings of non-credibility was patently unreasonable, and that, as a result, the decision should be set aside.
[3] I will review each of the disputed findings in turn. However, for the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that the Board erred in its over-all assessment of Dr. Safarov’s credibility. As a consequence, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Dr. Safarov’s Failure to Identify the Secretary-General of the Musavat Party
[4] In the course of his testimony, Dr. Safarov was asked to identify the Secretary-General of the Musavat Party. He was unable to do so, stating that he was not aware of such a position within the Party.
[5] The Board found that one would reasonably have expected that a well-educated individual such as Dr. Safarov, who claimed to have been active in the Party, would know the identity of the Party’s Secretary-General, and that his inability to identify the individual in question cast doubt on his claim to active party membership.
[6] In argument, Dr. Safarov’s counsel pointed out that his client was testifying through a Russian interpreter, suggesting that there may have been difficulties in the way that the term “Secretary-General” was translated.
[7] The difficulty with this submission is that it is unsupported by the evidence. Dr. Safarov’s affidavit deals directly with this area of questioning, and there is nothing in his affidavit to suggest that there was any confusion in his mind arising out of the terminology used by the interpreter.
[8] Moreover, there is no inconsistency in the country condition information with respect to the title of the position held by Vergun Ayub. The second-in-command of the Musavat Party is consistently referred to in the documentary evidence as the “Secretary-General”.
[9] It is true that when Dr. Safarov was specifically asked if he knew who “Vergun Ayub” was, he was able to identify Ayub as the second-in-command of the Party. Nevertheless, given his inability to do so without prompting, it cannot be said that the Board’s finding that Dr. Safarov’s credibility was called into question by his inability to spontaneously identify the Secretary-General of the Musavat Party was patently unreasonable.
The Participation of the Musavat Party in a Multi-party Coalition
[10] Dr. Safarov was asked if the Musavat Party had ever participated in a coalition whereby several opposition parties agreed to put forward a single, joint candidate in an election. He said that this had not happened, and that each party had acted on its own.
[11] The Board rejected Dr. Safarov’s testimony in this regard, stating that there had been a coalition or agreement between several opposition parties, including the Musavat Party, to present a single joint presidential candidate in the 2003 election.
[12] I agree with Dr. Safarov that the Board’s finding in this regard was patently unreasonable. The documentary evidence discloses that while the leader of the Musavat Party led an attempt to forge an alliance between opposition parties in the lead-up to the 2003 election, the attempt was unsuccessful, and the effort collapsed within two weeks. It does not appear that a single joint presidential candidate was ever identified or put forward.
[13] As a result, it appears that Dr. Safarov’s testimony that there was no agreement between the Musavat Party and other opposition parties to form a coalition and present a single presidential candidate was quite correct.
Dr. Safarov’s Inability to Identify the Name of the Party Newspaper
[14] The Board drew a negative inference from the fact that Dr. Safarov was unable to properly identify the name of the Musavat Party newspaper. In my view, this was entirely reasonable.
The Letter of Attestation from the Musavat Party
[15] Dr. Safarov provided a copy of a 2006 letter from the Musavat Party attesting to his membership in the party and his activities on its behalf. The Board had concerns with respect to the authenticity of the letter arising out of the address on the letterhead, and because of inconsistencies in Dr. Safarov’s testimony as to the location of the party headquarters. The Board also chose to give the letter no weight because of Dr. Safarov’s general lack of credibility.
[16] Having reviewed the relevant portions of the transcript, I am of the view that there was nothing intrinsically implausible about Dr. Safarov’s claim that the party headquarters had relocated to Mikra District No. 8, which was evidently in the Binadagi area of the city of Baku.
[17] That said, Dr. Safarov initially testified that the headquarters of the Musavat Party had been located at 47 Azerbaijan Prospect, but that the party was no longer at that address, having been evicted by government forces in 2003. When he was subsequently confronted with the fact that his letter of attestation had the old address on the letterhead some three years after the party relocated, he speculated that the party headquarters may have been moved back to the old address.
[18] Given the inconsistencies in Dr. Safarov’s testimony on this point, it was not unreasonable of the Board to decline to attach little weight to the letter.
The Medical Report
[19] Dr. Safarov provided a copy of a medical report which he says supported his claim to have been beaten by police because of his participation in opposition activities.
[20] The Board declined to attach any weight to the report because while Dr. Safarov testified that he had been severely beaten on the soles of his feet, he did not mention having any difficulty in walking in his testimony, and there was no mention of any such injuries in the medical report.
[21] Dr. Safarov had explained in his testimony that the report was incomplete, as it had likely been prepared by very junior medical personnel.
[22] The medical report is quite lengthy, and provides a detailed description of Dr. Safarov’s injuries. The document states that he had multiple body injuries to his head, right thigh and ribs. There is no mention of any injuries to Dr. Safarov’s feet. The Board concluded that if Dr. Safarov had been beaten on the soles of his feet as he claimed, the hospital report would have reflected this. I can see nothing unreasonable about this conclusion.
Failure to Claim Elsewhere
[23] Dr. Safarov spent three months in Germany before coming to Canada. He testified that he did not attempt to seek refugee protection in that country as people had told him that the process was time consuming and unlikely to succeed.
[24] The Board did not accept this explanation, noting that Germany is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and that one would have expected a well-educated man such as Dr. Safarov to have made proper inquiries about the availability of asylum in Germany. The Board’s finding in this regard was entirely open to it on the evidence.
Conclusion
[25] While I am satisfied that the Board’s finding with respect to the involvement of the Musavat Party in a multi-party coalition was patently unreasonable, I am not persuaded that this one error was sufficiently central to the Board’s analysis as to warrant the decision being set aside. The Board had numerous other reasons for finding that Dr. Safarov was not credible, which have withstood judicial scrutiny.
[26] As a consequence, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[27] Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4541-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: SAFAROV RUSLAN v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Isak Grushka For the Applicant
Rhonda Marquis For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Isak Grushka
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, ON For the Applicant
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent