Date: 19980209
Docket: IMM-4810-96
BETWEEN:
YOUSEF NIKNAZAR
YASAMAN YASDAN SHARIF
GHAZAL NIKNAZAR
AMEER DAVID NIKNAZAR
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JOYAL, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated December 5, 1996, which denied Convention refugee status to Yousef Niknazar and Yasaman Yasdan Sharif ("the applicants"), as well as their minor children, Ghazal Niknazar and Ameer David Niknazar.
The Facts
[2] The applicants and their two minor children claim to be citizens of Iran, but they travelled to Canada with Israeli passports.
[3] Their problems with the Iranian authorities began in April 1994, when the applicants rented out their video studio to people who were recommended by a friend. These people were film-makers who came to the studio once or twice a week to develop films. The applicants were never concerned about the contents of the films, since the film-makers had been recommended by their friend. Nor did the applicants ever see any of the films being processed.
[4] The film-makers came to the studio regularly for a period of about two and a half month, then abruptly stopped coming, without any further contact with the applicants. Their friend indicated that the film-makers were busy, but would be returning to the studio later.
[5] Ten days later, the applicants heard from the friend that both film-makers had been arrested, although no reasons were given. The applicants subsequently heard that the arrest had been for the reproduction of political films.
[6] The applicants did not realize at that time that they might be in any danger. They decided to visit Turkey for a vacation. While there, the husband called his mother-in-law, who told him that some people had been to their house, looking for them. At this point, the applicants became somewhat frightened.
[7] A few days later, the husband spoke again to his mother-in-law, and was told that the Posdaran had searched the applicants' house and had enquired into their whereabouts. The applicants then realized that they had been implicated in the illegal activities of the film-makers and could no longer return safely to Iran. They met an agent in Turkey, who made arrangements for their escape. The agent told them that they had to go through Israel in order to get to Canada.
[8] The husband's family is Jewish, and had fled Iran to Israel in 1979. He had chosen not follow his family, and converted to the Muslim faith instead. His parents rejected him after his conversion.
[9] After the applicants' arrival in Israel, the agent repeatedly, and with numerous excuses, postponed their departure for Canada. He had their passports, thus the applicants had no choice but to remain in Israel until the necessary arrangements had been made. They finally left for Canada on September 29, 1995, and claimed refugee status as soon as they arrived.
Board Decision:
[10] The Board found the applicants not to be Convention refugees, on the basis that their testimony was not credible or trustworthy, and that they did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran.
Issues:
[11] Did the Board err in law when it made credibility findings which were unsupported by the evidence and/or made without regard to the totality of the evidence before it?
Analysis:
[12] The determination of credibility is a question of fact, within a Board's jurisdiction. A Board is in the best position to gage the credibility of a claimant, and contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence are considered accepted basis for a finding of lack of credibility. This Court should not interfere in a Board's conclusion unless it is patently unreasonable.
[13] For its part, a Board, while rendering a decision, must respect certain conditions in order to "shield" itself from judicial review. It must address a negative finding of credibility in clear and unmistakable terms, with regard to the totality of the evidence. It must give a claimant ample opportunity to explain any and all contradictions. And in assessing the evidence, it must not apply western standards of rationality to an applicant's particular situation.
[14] It should also be remembered that with the applicant rests the burden of demonstrating that the inferences drawn by a Board are unreasonable in regards to the material before it.
Conclusion
[15] In the case at bar, the Board's decision clearly outlined the reasons why the applicants were found to be not credible. Notwithstanding impressive argument to the contrary by counsel for the applicants, I can find in the decision no grounds to justify my intervention. Specifically, the Board was correct in attacking the credibility of the applicants' evidence with respect to the continuing presence of the underground films in their studio.
[16] The Board, as stated earlier, is in the best position to decide issues of credibility and plausibility, and this Court should defer to its finding in this regard. The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
L-Marcel Joyal
J U D G E
O T T A W A, Ontario
February 9, 1998.