Date: 19980821
Docket: IMM-5056-97
Between :
NASRIN TAJICK
BABAK NALCHIGAR
VENUS NALGHIGAR
RAHMATOLLAH NALCHIGAR
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated October 15, 1997, in which the Board determined they were not Convention refugees as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act.
[2] The principal applicant, Nasrin Tajick, born October 11, 1962, is a citizen of Iran. Her parents and siblings live in Iran, but her husband, Rahmat-Allah Nalchighar, and her two children, Babak and Venus, have accompanied her to Canada and base their claim on her claim.
[3] It appears that the Board's decision is based quite simply on the principal applicant's lack of credibility:
| Concerns regarding the credibility of the principal claimant's evidence were raised at the beginning of the hearing. For example, her original narrative in the PIF did not mention that she was raped nor was that mentioned in her psychiatrist's, Dr. de Costa's report. However, she testified that she was raped by the guards during detention and submitted a statement to that effect just prior to the commencement of the hearing. |
[4] The Board was clearly wrong in stating that the alleged rape was not mentioned in "Dr. de Costa's report". On the contrary, Dr. de Costa's first report dealt at length with the alleged rape and the trauma caused by it to the main applicant. In my view, the main applicant's condition and the state of her evidence was such that the said report became so important that the Board was required to directly and correctly address it. The report (based on nine sessions between the main applicant and Dr. de Costa) provided a plausible explanation for the main applicant's behaviour. The Board dismissed this explanation (without specifically referring to it) based on its single session observations of her in a highly stressful situation. A further troubling aspect of this part of the decision is the fact that the Board, at page 3, accepted as plausible that the main applicant might be reluctant to disclose the rape in her PIF. Under such circumstances, the Board's failure to properly comment on Dr. de Costa's first report is rather significant. In conclusion, the Board's failure to properly address the medical evidence warrants the intervention of this Court and the application for judicial review will be granted, the decision of the Board set aside, and the matter remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
[5] No question of general importance was proposed for the purpose of certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 21, 1998