Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20020121

Docket: IMM-1652-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 66

BETWEEN:

                                                                     YONES KOHAN

                                                            SARA KOHAN (a minor)

                                                                                                                                                    Applicant

                                                                            - and -

                                   THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                               Respondent

                                                              REASONS FOR ORDER

TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:

[1]                 This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board"), dated March 1, 2001, rejecting the applicant's claim for Convention refugee status.

[2]                 The facts, as summarized by the Board, are as follows:

[3]                 The applicant, Yones Kohan, is a 37-year-old citizen of Iran. He is accompanied by his oldest daughter, Sara, who was three and half years old at the time of their departure from Iran.

[4]                 The applicant comes from a family strongly opposed to the Islamic government. He is a pro-Shah monarchist supporter and says to have started his monarchist political activities in 1982 while still at University.

[5]                 In 1985, the applicant's brother was arrested because of his connection with the old monarchist regime. He was charged with anti-government activities and later executed.

[6]                 The applicant continued his activities (reading literature and engaging in discussions with family and friends) until his arrest in 1989 during a raid by the Revolutionary Guardians at a friend's home. He was sent to Evin prison, in Tehran, for one year.

[7]                 After his release, the applicant did not resume his activities until 1993. In the meantime, he got married and had two daughters.

[8]                 The applicant and a small group of friends met a few times a month to discuss monarchist thought, view banned videotapes, and distribute leaflets and flyers.

[9]                 The event that precipitated his departure from Iran occurred on September 6, 1998. The applicant explains that on that day, his neighbour called him to inform him that the Revolutionary Guardians had raided his house and had arrested his wife after finding anti-government literature in their home. The applicant was also warned that the officers were looking for him.

[10]            During his Eligibility Interview, for which the report is dated March 30, 2000, the applicant specified that a friend of his wife had faxed her a newspaper clipping concerning the activities of the Shah's son in the United States. The applicant said he didn't know how the army found out about the fax.

[11]            Following these events, the applicant fled to his aunt's home in Tehran and later joined his mother-in-law and two daughters in Tabriz. Through the efforts of his family, arrangements were made for a smuggler to get him and his oldest daughter out of Iran.

[12]            They left Iran on September 15, 1998 and arrived in Canada on July 12, 1999. The applicant claimed refugee status for him and his daughter on August 11, 1999. He claims a well-founded fear of persecution from government authorities because of his political opinion, namely his involvement in pro-monarchist activities.

[13]            The Board found that the applicant's evidence was not credible. More particularly, the Board noted that the applicant failed to mention the incriminating fax in his Personal Information Form (PIF) and in a letter to CIC Etobicoke dated August 16, 1999. The Board found that this omission detracted from the credibility of the fax story.

[14]            At the hearing the applicant was asked to clarify this point. The Board noted that the applicant's responses were often speculative in nature, with differing stories emerging concerning the alleged fax. It found that the claimant was unable to give consistent, focussed answers to repeated questions on the alleged precipitating event related to the fax. For these reasons, the Board found not credible the claimant's testimony about receipt of a fax and the events that followed as a result. It found that the alleged fax did not exist, and since the fax was pivotal to the claim, the claim failed.

[15]            I am satisfied that the inferences drawn by the Board are not so unreasonable as to warrant the Court's intervention.

[16]            Further, the Board also concluded that the applicant's story was not supported by the documentary evidence. This evidence indicated that pro-monarchist activities were currently of no interest to the authorities and that there was a move toward greater freedom of expression in Iran.

[17]            While it is true that freedom of the press and other human rights are severely curbed in Iran, the documentary evidence shows that many subjects of discussion are tolerated, including criticism of certain government policies. The documentary evidence also backs up the Board's finding that there is a move toward greater freedom of expression in Iran.

[18]            I gather from the evidence that it is mostly those who speak out publicly against the state (such as newspaper publishers, writers etc.) that get into trouble. The documentary evidence contains information concerning the assassination of monarchists in France as well as other incidents where monarchists were arrested. However, these events date back to the early 1990's. The more recent documents do not mention incidents with monarchists, thus giving credence to the Board's finding that things are beginning to change in Iran.

[19]            I admit that the human rights situation in Iran is deplorable. Nevertheless, the particular facts in the present case do not support the applicant's allegation that the Board ignored documentary evidence which would appear to offer credibility to the applicant.

[20]            For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

                                                                                                                          "Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"

JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

January 21, 2002.