Date: 19990519
Docket: IMM-301-98
BETWEEN:
BEHZAD AHANGARAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at
Toronto, Ontario on May 19, 1999)
McGILLIS J.
[1] The applicant has challenged by way of judicial review the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") rejecting his claim to Convention refugee status. The applicant is a citizen of Iran.
[2] Following his departure from Iran, the applicant travelled to Dubai, to Germany and to Denmark. Upon his arrival in Denmark, he made a refugee claim. Although his claim in Denmark was rejected on November 29, 1994, certain documents tendered by the applicant to support his allegations of persecution in Iran were found to be authentic. The applicant subsequently made a refugee claim in Sweden. He travelled to several other countries, and on April 9, 1996, he travelled to Canada and made a refugee claim. His Swedish claim was cancelled on November 20, 1996 on the basis that he was presumed to have left Sweden.
[3] In its reasons for decision, delivered orally almost immediately after the hearing, the Board found that the applicant was not a credible witness. In its analysis, the Board considered his "different stories" about his travel routes between various countries, following his departure from Iran, as well as the false travel documents and identities he used and his initial denial in Canada that he made other refugee claims. In particular, the Board stated as follows:
| When I look at the very complex and convoluted evidence that the claimant"s given regarding his various scenarios that he"s told various authorities as to how he got to various countries, it"s impossible for me to lend any, give any credibility to his evidence in the, on this issue of how he got to Canada, how he got to Sweden, how he got to Denmark. |
When I consider the variety and number of obviously fraudulent documents that he used to travel about the world, really, I can"t give any credence at all to any evidence that he gives about travel documents that he used.
[4] The Board concluded its analysis as follows:
| Though when I sit back and look at the totality of the evidence regarding the travel, the previous claims for refugee status, the false names, the conflicting evidence that he provided in his port of entry notes, his Personal Information Form and to the Danish authorities about his previous travel, and his lengthy travel machinations back and forth to Europe, South America, North America, I just can"t make a determination about the truth of anything the claimant tells me in that regard. |
| In my view, his credibility is completely wanting ... I can"t with any, anything even remotely approaching a degree of certainty, sort out what he"s told us about why he has a wellfounded [sic] fear of persecution in Iran. And therefore, I determine that he is not a Convention refugee. He is not, he"s not a Convention refugee because I can"t make a positive finding of credibility which would enable me to assess the wellfoundedness [sic] of his fear of persecution. |
[5] Counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that the Board erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence tendered in support of the claim. I agree with that submission. A review of the Board's reasons confirms that it failed to consider the substance of the claim advanced by the applicant concerning his alleged persecution in Iran. Indeed, the Board's credibility findings are based solely on matters pertaining to his travel following his departure from Iran, including matters such as his use of false documents and identities. Although the Board was entitled to consider all of the matters relied on by it in assessing the applicant's credibility, it was also required to evaluate the credibility of his evidence concerning the substance of his refugee claim. The failure of the Board to consider the totality of the evidence before it constitutes an error of law.
[6] In view of my conclusion in this matter, it is unnecessary for me to consider the other issues raised by counsel.
[7] The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Board dated January 9, 1998 is quashed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted Board for rehearing and redetermination. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
"D. McGillis"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-301-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: BEHZAD AHANGARAN |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: McGILLIS J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Micheal Crane
For the Applicant
Mr. Toby Hoffmann
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Micheal Crane |
| 200-166 Pearl Street |
| Toronto, Ontario |
| M5H 1L3 |
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990519
Docket: IMM-301-98
Between:
| BEHZAD AHANGARAN |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT