Date: 19980507
Docket: IMM-3591-97
BETWEEN:
JAFAR RAHIMI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated July 30, 1997. By that decision, the Board determined that the applicant herein is not a Convention refugee.
Facts
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Iran, and was employed as a government driver with the revolutionary guards (the Ministry of Sepah). In August of 1996, the applicant's second cousin, a member of the underground anti-government Mujahedin political group came to stay with the applicant's family in Teheran. He had been in hiding for four months following the arrest of his brother and father for their involvement with the Mujahedin. From his military base, the applicant telephoned his family home and spoke to his sister in Turkish concerning their fear of the second cousin staying in the family home.
[3] It appears that all telephone calls from the military base were monitored. The following day, the applicant was detained, beaten and interrogated by the security guards on the base. They informed him that he would be turned over to the authorities. The next day he was taken by ship to the mainland port of Bandar Abbas. En route, the applicant escaped by jumping overboard and swimming to shore. He then hitchhiked with a passing driver, and, subsequently, exited Iran.
The Board's Reasons
[4] The Board made rather strenuous adverse findings of credibility with respect to the applicant's evidence. The Board found the applicant's story "not plausible."1 At page 7 of the Tribunal Record, the panel expressed a further concern: "... the fact that some documentation apparently was subsequently sent to the claimant that might have substantiated some of what the claimant said. He indicated that he destroyed the documentation because he did not think it was particularly important."
[5] The Board's final conclusion was2; "We cannot accept that there is a "reasonable chance" or "a serious possibility" that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution, should he return to Iran, in view of the fact that we are simply unable to accept any of the details of the alleged arrest and escape."
Analysis
[6] This application deals primarily with the issue of credibility. In a claim to Convention refugee status, the tribunal must consider, firstly, whether the weight of the evidence establishes a subjective fear of persecution. Additionally the claimant must establish that there is "a reasonable chance" or a "serious possibility" that the claimant's fear is objectively well founded3. In making such a determination a tribunal should not reject or draw inferences that are adverse to uncontradicted evidence, consistent evidence or evidence that is not inherently suspect or improbable. Additionally, where a finding of lack of credibility is based on an inherent implausibility as opposed to inconsistencies or internal contradictions, the standard of review is lessened4.
[7] In its reasons, the Board made no general finding of credibility. It focussed, rather, on certain "implausibilities." On this basis it can be presumed that, apart from the stated implausibilities, the applicant was, in all other respects, a credible witness5.
[8] I am not persuaded by the Board 's conclusion as to the implausibilities in the applicant's testimony. The Board's conclusion that hitchhiking in Iran is more difficult than hitchhiking in America is pure speculation. Such speculation is a departure from the presumption that the applicant's sworn and uncontradicted evidence is credible. Similarly, with respect to applicant's escape evidence, I conclude that the Board erred in refusing to accept this evidence. It should be observed that even the Refugee Claim Officer conceded that such an escape "might well be plausible."6
[9] A review of the record persuades me that, there is no evidence whatsoever in that record to support the Board's findings of implausibilities.
Conclusion
[10] Accordingly, and for the above reasons, I have concluded that the within application for judicial review must be allowed, the decision of the Board herein dated July 30, 1997, set aside and the matter referred back to a differently constituted panel of the Division for rehearing and redetermination.
Certification
[11] Neither counsel suggested the certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification. Accordingly, no question will be certified.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
May 7, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3591-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: JAFAR RAHIMI |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 6, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: MAY 7, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Steven Beiles
For the Applicant
Mr. David Tyndale
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Steven Beiles
Barristers & Solicitors
281 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980507
Docket: IMM-3591-97
Between:
| JAFAR RAHIMI |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
3 Adjei v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1989] 2 F.C. 680
4 Compare Giron v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 143 N.R. p. 238
5 Pathamanathan v. Canada (M.E.I.), June 24, 1993, Ottawa 93-A-67