IMM-2507-96
B E T W E E N:
ABDOLLAH MOHAMMADI
NINA MOHAMMADI
NADIA MOHAMMADI
NIMA MOHAMMADI
SOHEILA RAHMANI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.:
This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated July 2, 1996. By this decision the Board determined that the applicants herein were not Convention refugees.
THE FACTS
The applicants are Abdollah Mohammadi (the male claimant), 37 years old, his spouse Soheila Rahmani (the female claimant) who is 30 years old, their daughters Nina and Nadia and their son Nima (the minor claimants). They are all citizens of Iran. The male claimant along with the minor claimants entered Canada on March 18, 1995, having travelled from Iran via Turkey, Holland and the United States. On July 12, 1995, the male claimant applied for Convention refugee status in Canada, citing his fear of persecution because of his political opinion. The female claimant entered Canada on July 30, 1995 and applied for Convention refugee status in January of 1996.
The male applicant was active in the Kurdish Communist party as well as in the Communist party of Iran. He withdrew from those parties in 1990. In 1995, his former house was raided. All of the family excepting the female claimant escaped from Iran through Turkey. The female claimant was arrested by revolutionary guards, beaten and questioned concerning the whereabouts of her husband. In May of 1995, she was moved to a hospital because she was experiencing a difficult pregnancy. Aided by members of the Communist party she was able to escape to Iraq and, subsequently to Turkey.
THE DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board held that there was an absence of credible or trustworthy evidence entitling it to conclude that the applicants were Convention refugees.
This conclusion was reached because of a number of major implausibilities in the evidence:
| (a) The evidence as to the applicants being sought by the authorities; |
| (i) the Board concluded that it was not plausible that the authorities were seeking the applicants. They so concluded because the evidence was that the applicants were not sought out at the homes of their close relatives (such as their uncle for example); |
| (ii) the authorities did not question the applicants' relatives concerning their whereabouts, even those living in close proximity to the applicants; and |
| (iii) the authorities did not seek the male applicant even though his wife had admitted his whereabouts to the authorities. |
| (b) The evidence as to the applicants exit from Iran; |
| (i) the male applicant said that he made contact with a smuggler and that he and his daughters left Iran with a false passport which included their true names and photographs. The Board found it implausible that, in spite of Iran's strict border crossing procedures, a wanted fugitive could exit Iran using a passport containing photographs as well as his correct name; and |
| (ii) while it was suggested that the smuggler bribed Iranian border officials, the Board did not agree, stating that it found this suggestion to be "sheer speculation". |
| (c) The evidence as to the male applicant's activities in Canada |
The male applicant testified that he was an active supporter of Kurdish and Communist causes. However, since his arrival in Canada, he had not been active at all in these causes. The Board found it implausible that someone "so dedicated to a cause that he will risk his life to be so active in Iran would do nothing in support of that cause once in Canada, where there are no sanctions at all for so doing ".
| (d) The evidence as to the female applicant's return to Iran |
The female applicant testified that she returned to Iran because she wished to say goodbye to her mother as well as retrieving some personal items. The Board found this activity to be implausible, since her mother could visit her (as her father did). They also found it implausible that she would risk returning for the mere purpose of retrieving some clothing items.
THE ISSUES
The issues raised by the applicants are:
| a) Did the Board err in its assessment of the applicants' credibility; |
| b) Did the Board have due regard to the totality of the evidence. |
ANALYSIS
In making assessments as to credibility, that assessment by the Board must be clear and unmistakable. In Hilo v. Canada (M.E.I.)1, the Federal Court of Appeal stated; "... the Board was under a duty to give its reasons for casting doubt upon the appellants credibility in clear and unmistakable terms. The Board's credibility assessment, quoted supra is defective because it is couched in vague and general terms".
In my view, the credibility assessment by the Board in this case meets the requirements set forth in Hilo supra. I consider it to be "clear" and "unmistakable".
In this case the Board accepted the documentary evidence in preference to the applicants testimony. In such a case, the Board is required to state in clear and unmistakable terms why it preferred the documentary evidence over the applicants testimonial evidence2.
My perusal of the evidence persuades me that the Board did, indeed, give detailed reasons for preferring the documentary evidence3.
The jurisprudence also requires that the Board have regard to the totality of the evidence4. Since the Board commented specifically on the major areas of the applicants evidence and related it to the documentary evidence, I am persuaded that the Board did have regard to the totality of the evidence.
Finally, it is my conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, that the decision reached by the Board was reasonably open to it on this record. On this basis, the within application for judicial review must be dismissed.
Neither counsel suggested that a serious question of general importance was involved in this application. I agree with that view of the matter. Accordingly, no serious question of general importance will be certified pursuant to the provision of section 83 of the Immigration Act.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D. J.
Toronto, Ontario
April 16, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2507-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: ABDOLLAH MOHAMMADI ET AL
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 15, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: APRIL 16, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jack Martin
For the Applicants
Ms. Kathryn Hucal
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Refugee Law Office
603-481 University Ave.
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2E9
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-2507-96
Between:
ABDOLLAH MOHAMMADI ET AL
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.).
2 Okyere-Akosah v. M.E.I., (1992) 157 N.R. 387 (F.C.A.). per Desjardins, J.A.
3 See Board's reasons - Application Record - Page 10.
4 Compare Owusu-Ansah v. M.E.I., (1989, 8 Imm. L.R. (2d) 106 (F.C.A.), at page 113.