Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980716


Docket: IMM-123-98

    

BETWEEN

     FARZAD SHAHA

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

McDONALD, J.A.

[1]      The application for judicial review is allowed. The Board erred in finding that based on documents stating that the activities of pro-monarchists in Iran are minimal, information on their activities is lacking and hard to find, and that this group poses a very marginal and ineffective threat to the present Iranian government, the claimant does not have a fear of persecution in Iran. It may very well be true that the pro-monarchist movement's activities are limited but this is not the issue. The real issue is whether, based on his pro-monarchist activity, does the claimant fear persecution for his political beliefs/activities if he is returned to Iran. By failing to address this question the Board erred.

[2]      If the reasoning of the Board is based on the fact that the applicant lacks credibility and therefore this evidence with respect to his activities cannot be believed then it should have so stated. As I read the decision no explicit findings on the applicant's credibility were made. If the Board rejected the applicant's claim on the ground that he lacked credibility the Board owed a duty to the applicant to state this in clear and unambiguous terms.1 The only finding of the Board that could possibly be said to relate to the applicant's credibility is its finding that the claimant had a very cursory knowledge of the pro-monarchist organization. As the claimant states in the transcript of the hearing, he was not an official member of the organization and only helped it out by making his place available for movie showings, etc.

[3]      The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated December 18, 1997 set aside, and the matter is referred back to a differently constituted panel for re-determination in accordance with these reasons.

                             "F.J. McDonald"

                                 J.A.

Toronto, Ontario

July 16, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-123-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      FARZAD SHAHA

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  JULY 15, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              McDONALD, J.A.

DATED:                          JULY 16, 1998

APPEARANCES:                     

                             Mr. Michael Brodzky

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. Brian Frimeth

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:             

                             Michael Brodzky

                             Barrister & Solicitor

                             69 Elm Street

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M5G 1H2

                                 For the Applicant

                              George Thomson

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent


                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19980716

                        

         Docket: IMM-123-98

                             Between:

                             FARZAD SHAHA

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                                                                                     REASONS FOR ORDER

                            


__________________

     1      See Armson v. Canada (1989) 9 Imm L.R. (2d) 150 at 157-8.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.