Date: 20001030
Docket: IMM-5943-99
BETWEEN:
M.H.
K.S.
Applicants
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This application is for judicial review under s. 82.1 of the Immigration Act (hereinafter "the Act"), of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, of the Immigration and Refugee Board (hereinafter "the Board"), dated November 8, 1999, whereby it found M.H. & K.S. (hereinafter "the female Applicant", "the male Applicant" or "the Applicants") not to be Convention Refugees.
[2] The Applicants are both citizens of Iran.
[3] The male Applicant claims that his family had strong ties to the monarchy. Allegedly, after the Revolution, his father and his paternal aunt's husband suffered imprisonment and public lashings for their connections to the Pahlevi regime. His paternal uncle was allegedly dismissed as head of a hospital for having relationships with elements of the old regime.
[4] The male Applicant claims he was denied admission to teacher's college as well as any other university program because of his family background.
[5] The male Applicant claims that during his military service he met and remained friends with Ali Reza. Ali Reza allegedly gave the male Applicant some monarchist and constitutionalist publications. After moving to (omitted) from (omitted), he allegedly attended a meeting at Ali Reza's house where he met others who soon formed a group of five. They allegedly met once a month.
[6] The male Applicant claims that one of the members, Kurosh, was in contact with Derafsh-e Kaviani (hereinafter "DK") and brought DK and Persepolis organization publications to the group. The group re-distributed the publications they received among trusted friends and relatives.
[7] The male Applicant claims that the Monkarrat or religious security forces broke up a party celebrating the anniversary of the Applicants' marriage, which also coincided with the Shah's birthday. The Applicants and their host were allegedly taken in for interrogation. They were subsequently released.
[8] On December 12, 1996, Ali Reza allegedly called to tell the Applicants that Kurosh had been arrested. The male Applicant claims he left immediately for Islamshar.
[9] The Applicants claim that three visits to their home by government officers followed after the male Applicant's departure.
[10] The Applicants claim that the day after the male Applicant's departure, three officers came and searched their home.
[11] In the course of their search, one of the officers allegedly pushed the female Applicant, causing her to fall down the basement stairs. She allegedly suffered injury to her wrist and miscarried.
[12] A letter from the hospital was produced by the Applicants stating that the female Applicant was admitted to the hospital on December 14 and had an abortion, caused by a blow to the abdomen, and surgery for Carpal tunnel syndrome.
[13] The male Applicant claims that his father-in-law informed him of these events and told him that the officers had taken photo albums and other evidence that showed his monarchist leanings.
[14] The female Applicant claims in her PIF that four days after she was released from the hospital, two officers came to the home and asked about her husband's whereabouts and told her he should report as soon as he returned from Mashad.
[15] The female Applicant claims that three weeks later, two different officers visited and were puzzled why her husband had not returned. One of the officers allegedly showed the female Applicant photos in her husband's album and asked questions about the people. In particular, he asked her about Ali Reza. She claims she said she could tell them nothing about him.
[16] The Applicants arrived in Canada on April 4, 1997 and made refugee claims the same day.
[17] Did the Board err in determining that there was no objective basis for the Applicants' claim and whether the Board erred in misapprehending the facts, and thereby, acted in a capricious manner in determining that the Applicants were not credible?
[18] The Board determined that the Applicants were not Convention Refugees, that they lacked credibility and there was no objective basis to their claim.
[19] The Board had concerns about the credibility of one of the Applicant's evidence and found there were discrepancies about the nature of the female Applicant's alleged injuries and her medical condition as given in the hospital report. The Applicants provided different descriptions of the incident in their respective PIFs. Moreover, the letter from the hospital was only a facsimile and beared no letterhead or official insignia.
[20] The Board also had concerns with the following documents in evidence:
Letter from the Persepolis Organisation in Germany: Although the male Applicant said he personally spoke to the Organisation using the Farsi language and requested the "Confirmation", the document in evidence was only a facsimile and it was written in the German language, which he does not understand.
Letter from the Secretariat of Shah Reza II in Virginia: It did not have a legible signature, it was not on official letterhead, and beared just a rubber stamp as insignia, despite the alleged connections with former Iranian royalty.
[21] The Board noted that although the male Applicant was in good communication with his family in Iran, he did not know whether an arrest warrant had been issued for him. It also noted that the Applicant provided no evidence that the authorities were still interested in him today; to the contrary, he testified that the government had not interfered with his family's businesses, as they might reasonably have been expected to do in the alleged circumstances.
[22] The panel reviewed the human-rights literature cited in the CRDD Information Package, Human Rights Information Package, DOS Country Reports, etc. Nowhere could it find reports of executions, imprisonments, or even arrests of monarchists that would indicate a persecutory trend, a government policy of persecution towards monarchists today in Iran, or any other risk the Applicants appeared to face. Nowhere as well could the panel find evidence of significant monarchist activity in Iran today. While the Board noted the argument that monarchist cells operate in complete secrecy, it found it remarkable that even among the Applicants' own country documents there was not one mention of the regime cracking down on monarchists.
[23] It concluded that the male Applicant's contention that monarchists are active and at risk in Iran today is completely at odds with the objective documentary evidence before the Board.
[24] The Applicants submit that the Board erred in misapprehending the facts, and thereby, acted in a capricious manner in determining that they were not credible.
[25] The Applicants argue that the Board erred in determining there was no objective basis for the Applicants' claim. They allege the Board solely reviewed the documentary evidence to prove that Monarchist activities were marginal and, therefore, the Applicants would not be at risk if they had to return. The Board never determined whether or not, the Applicants' political actions would cause the Iranian Regime to take action against them.
[26] On the issue of credibility, though there was some inconsequential error, this Court should not interfere with the Board's decision. While, the Board may have erred, the Applicants have not demonstrated that this error has caused them prejudice. In light of the entire claim, this possible error is, in my opinion, insignificant. Since there are other reasons for which the Board determined that the Applicants were not credible, the result would have still been the same, regardless of the Board's conclusion on certain documents.
[27] As I read the Board's decision, it is apparent that what is central to its finding is objective basis. The Board, after making an express negative credibility finding, properly assessed the objective country documentation as well as the evidence adduced by the Applicants to determine whether there was a well-founded fear of persecution, and therefore did not commit the error referred to in Shaha v. M.C.I., [1998] F.C.J. No. 1045 (T.D.).
[28] I agree with the Respondent, that in light of the totality of the evidence, the Board's findings concerning objective basis were reasonable ones and open to it based on the evidence before it. The Board set out in its decision a detailed analysis of the objective documents as well as the evidence adduced by the Applicants. The Applicants' position in the present case seems to amount to a disagreement with the manner in which the Board weighed the evidence. However, it seems clear that it is for the Board to examine all of the evidence and to draw inferences therefrom. The intervention of this Court is not warranted unless the conclusion reached appears to be capricious or unreasonable. The Applicants simply failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that the fear of persecution was well-founded. As such, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that there was no objective basis for the male Applicant's refugee claim as an alleged monarchist, or correspondingly, for the female Applicant's associated refugee claim.
[29] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 30, 2000