Yilmaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 844

Date: 20030711

Docket: IMM-3952-02

Citation: 2003 FC 844

Between:

Metin YILMAZ

Plaintiff

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Defendant

REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.

[1]                 This is an application for judicial review from a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the IRB") on July 30, 2002, that the plaintiff is not a Convention refugee as defined in s. 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.

[2]                 The plaintiff, a citizen of Turkey, is of Kurdish origin and Alevi religion. He alleged that he had a well-founded fear of persecution by the Turkish authorities because of his membership in the Hadep party and the Haci Bektas Veli association and on account of his Kurdish and Alevi status.

[3]                 The IRB dismissed the plaintiff's claim because it found him not credible, as appears from the following passage from its decision:

[TRANSLATION]

                 The preceding testimony by the claimant was not considered credible, as his lack of knowledge of well-known political facts seemed to the tribunal to be inconsistent with the allegation of membership in the pro-Kurdish Hadep party.

                 In view of the claimant's general lack of credibility, no evidentiary value was attached to the documents he submitted in support of his claim.

[4]                 This is a case in which I intend to intervene, as I feel after reviewing the file that several of the inconsistencies and contradictions which the plaintiff allegedly made were not actually that.

[5]                 In particular, I consider that the IRB erred in concluding that the plaintiff's testimony lacked credibility because of his ignorance of certain facts relating to the Hadep party. In comparing the plaintiff with an informed person in a free world, the tribunal did not take his particular social situation into account, but imposed on him North American measures of comparison. It also wrongly required a level of political knowledge usually required of an active member, rather than a simple supporting member of the party. The IRB also erred by not specifically mentioning the document indicating the plaintiff's enrolment as a member of the Hadep, a document which the tribunal nevertheless itself requested at the end of the hearing. These errors are of particular significance, since they all relate to the gist of the claim.

[6]                 For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision a quo quashed and the matter referred back to an IRB of different members for rehearing and redetermination.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

July 11, 2003

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

FILE:                                                                               IMM-3952-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                     Metin YILMAZ v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                                  June 19, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                    Pinard J.

DATED:                                                                           July 11, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Eveline Fiset                                                                       FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Michèle Joubert                                                                 FOR THE DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Eveline Fiset                                                                       FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                                              FOR THE DEFENDANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario