IMM-3370-96
| IN THE MATTER OF the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, C.1-2 as amended. |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board respecting the claim to be recognized as a Convention refugee by Talat Koshnoud Ghavim |
B E T W E E N:
TALAT KOSHNOUD GHAVIM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.:
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 August 16, 1996, wherein the Board determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
Facts
The applicant was born in Iran in 1962 and remains a citizen of that country. She claims refugee status on the basis of her political opinion and membership in a particular social group, namely, her family. She participated as a youth in the 1979 Khomeini revolution. However, after the revolution, she became interested in the Mujahedeen through her brother who was active in that organization. She distributed their bulletins, participated in their meetings and contributed financially. On June 20, 1981, she was arrested for participating in an anti-government demonstration in Teheran. She was released after providing information to the authorities concerning herself and her family. During the next two years, her home was raided several times. Thereafter there was a period of relative calm in Iran. The applicant stated that she was unable to enter medical school because of her political record. However, her father was able to have her accepted into the nursing profession. The applicant claims that from 1981 to 1991, she was subjected to various forms of harassment such as inability to obtain employment and false accusations relative to breaches of the dress code for women. She also admitted that she was fairly active in the Mujahedeen in 1991. In November of 1991 she was arrested, interrogated and physically assaulted. At a trial before a Mullah lasting ten minutes, she was sentenced to a year imprisonment for being a counter-revolutionary. Because of a New Year's amnesty, she was released in March of 1992.
In August of 1994, she assisted the Mujahedeen in providing antibiotics and antiseptics to some of the members who had been injured in a riot at Ghazvin. Thereafter she went into hiding since she was being accused of being an instigator in the riot. With money given to her by her father, she hired an agent to assist her in her escape to Canada. She came to Canada via Turkey and Amsterdam. She claimed refugee status at the port of entry.
The Reasons of the Board
The Board concluded that the applicant's claim was based, firstly on her fear of persecution because her brother was a member of the Mujahedeen and, secondly, because she was wanted by Iranian authorities as an instigator of the riot at Ghazvin. The Board found the applicant lacking in credibility for five different reasons:
| a) She could not adequately explain her refusal to disclose her brother's whereabouts to the police upon her arrest in 1991; |
| b) The Board felt that her relationship with her father, who was a religious man, should have more than balanced out her association with her brother; |
| c) In notes taken at the port of entry, there is no references to her being sought by the Iranian authorities as an instigator of the Ghazvin riot; |
| d) There is no evidence whatsoever on the record to support the applicant's claim that she was wanted by the authorities of Iran as an instigator of the Ghazvin riot; |
| e) She made no attempt to contact her friends in the Mujahedeen before fleeing Iran to ascertain whether the police had connected her to the riot in any way and were searching for her. |
Analysis
My perusal of this record persuades me that the Board was clearly entitled to make the adverse findings of credibility set forth supra. In its reasons, the Board identified numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the applicant's oral testimony when compared to other evidence before the Board which it found credible. On this basis, the Board found the applicant's evidence implausible. In my view, the Board was clearly entitled to reach such a conclusion1.
In these circumstances, it would be improper for the Court to interfere with the Board's assessment of credibility. An oral hearing was held where the Board had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and of observing their demeanour while testifying. In my view, it was reasonably open to the Board on the evidence to conclude as it did2.
Conclusion
Accordingly, and for the above reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
Neither counsel suggested 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
July 8, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3370-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: TALAT KOSHNOUD GHAVIM
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JULY 8, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: JULY 8, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Arthur W. Weinreb
For the Applicant
Mr. David Tyndale
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Roger D. Rodrigues
Barrister and Solicitor
372 Richmond Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 1X6
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-3370-96
Between:
TALAT KOSHNOUD GHAVIM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 Compare Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)
2 See Oduro v. M.E.I. (1993), 66 F.T.R. p. 107-108.