Date: 20030128
Docket: IMM-385-03
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 87
BETWEEN:
SHAHROOZ SEYED MAHMOUDIAN
and
MAHIN PAKNEJAD
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] I express in writing the brief reasons stated orally yesterday when dismissing an application for stay of the execution of a removal order scheduled for today at 3:30 p.m.
[2] The underlying judicial review application challenges a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) made by Sylvie Duval on November 14, 2002 but only recently communicated to the applicants.
[3] The applicants are mother and son (age 19), citizens of Iran. This is the second refugee claim for Mahin Paknejad who first came to Canada in 1993 with her son then age 11. She abandoned her claim and returned to Iran.
[4] The Refugee Division in its April 7, 2002 decision refused the applicants recognition as refugees. The Board simply did not believe their story.
[5] It did not believe Mr. Mahmoudian was being sought by the authorities. He had denied, at the port of entry being sought by the police and the army. He also answered No to question 20 of his personal information form (PIF) which asked whether he is wanted by the police, army or any other authority in Iran.
[6] The Refugee Division did not believe Mahin Paknejab who, during the time she stated she was being persecuted, flew in and out of Iran several times.
[7] The applicants sought leave of this Court from the Refugee Division's decision. Leave was refused.
[8] Before PRRA officer Duval, the applicants presented no new evidence and relied on the answer they gave in question 37 in each of their PIF's reciting facts which were not believed by the Refugee Division.
[9] Under the circumstances, I am not satisfied the applicants made out a case of irreparable harm. No new evidence was put forward by the applicants and their limited attack on the factual findings of PRRA officer Duval did not remotely persuade me she had erred.
[10] Counsel for the applicants pointed to the USDOS Country Report in Iran in 2001 to show me how things were bad in Iran especially for a person of Mr. Mahmoudian's profile - allegedly one who does not adhere to the Islamic code of behaviour.
[11] I agree with Justice McKay in Gogna v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)[1993] F.C.J. No. 817 that it is not sufficient for the applicants to rely on general country conditions without "bringing it home" to their particular circumstances. This they failed to do.
[12] This stay application is dismissed.
"François Lemieux"
Judge
Montreal, Quebec
January 28, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20030128
Docket: IMM-385-03
BETWEEN:
SHAHROOZ SEYED MAHMOUDIAN
and
MAHIN PAKNEJAD
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-385-03
STYLE OF CAUSE:
SHAHROOZ SEYED MAHMOUDIAN
and
MAHIN PAKNEJAD
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 27, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
DATED: January 28, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Viken Artinian FOR THE APPLICANTS
Ms. My Dung Tran Thi FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Viken Artinian FOR THE APPLICANTS
Montreal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec