Date: 20100430
Dockets: IMM-4003-09
Citation: 2010 FC 484
Ottawa, Ontario, April 30, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
FARZAN
FARZANEH SARKARIZI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
In 2007, Mr. Farzan Farzaneh Sarkarizi sought
refugee protection in Canada
after fleeing Iran. He claims
to have been persecuted in Iran
because of his interest in Christianity. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee
Board heard Mr. Sarkarizi’s claim, but dismissed it because it disbelieved his
account of events.
[2]
Mr. Sarkarizi maintains that the Board’s adverse
credibility findings were unreasonable and he asks me to order another panel of
the Board to reconsider his claim. I agree that the Board erred and, therefore,
will grant this application for judicial review.
II. Analysis
(1)
Factual Background
[3]
Mr. Sarkarizi outlined a number of problems he
had in Iran because he was
perceived to be anti-Islam. He had trouble getting into university and
experienced difficulties during his military service. He was arrested and
beaten, once for playing music in his car and a second time for wearing a
Michael Jackson t-shirt. He ran into more serious difficulties when he told a member
of the Basij that he wanted to follow Christ. Two days later, his apartment was
raided. State agents looked for him at his father’s home. They accused Mr.
Sarkarizi of insulting Islam and threatened to kill him.
(2)
The Board’s Decision
[4]
The Board found inconsistencies in Mr.
Sarkarizi’s account of events. First, the Board noted that in his initial
interview on arrival in Canada,
Mr. Sarkarizi said he was an atheist, not a Christian.
[5]
Second, the Board found that Mr. Sarkarizi had
not actually converted to Christianity; nor had he spent the necessary time
studying Christianity in Iran
when he had an opportunity to do so.
[6]
Third, while Mr. Sarkarizi claimed that he
attends a Jehovah’s Witness church regularly, again he could not confirm that
he had fully converted to Christianity. Further, he did not have corroborating
documentation from the church, only a letter from a fellow parishioner.
[7]
Fourth, Mr. Sarkarizi asserted that authorities
would still be looking for him in Iran. The Board thought this was unlikely after two years in Canada.
[8]
Fifth, the Board was concerned that Mr.
Sarkarizi’s statutory declaration, taken at the port-of-entry on his arrival in
Canada, made no reference to his claim to have been arrested and detained in Iran.
(3)
Was the Board’s Decision Reasonable?
[9]
Mr. Sarkarizi disputes all of the Board’s
findings. I agree with him that at least some of these findings are
inconsistent with the evidence.
[10]
First, at the port-of-entry, Mr. Sarkarizi
mentioned his interest in Christianity. True, he labelled himself an atheist,
but he explained that in Iran
an atheist is a person who is not religious or is not Islamic. He felt this
description applied to him, notwithstanding his interest in the Christian
faith, which he made very clear.
[11]
Second, it appears that Mr. Sarkarizi has not
yet fully converted to Christianity. However, this does not mean that he was
not, or would not be, persecuted on religious grounds in Iran.
[12]
Third, Mr. Sarkarizi explained that he attends Bible
studies at a Jehovah’s Witness church once or twice a week (the Board said once
or twice a month, which appears to be an inadvertent error). He explained that
the church has a policy of not providing letters to refugee claimants. The
Board did not address that explanation. Mr. Sarkarizi did, however, provide a
letter corroborating his attendance at Bible class.
[13]
Fourth, the Board was entitled to be sceptical
of Mr. Sarkarizi’s claim that authorities would still be looking for him at
this point. But, generally, care must be taken to find evidentiary support for
findings of implausibility. The Board did not refer to any documentary evidence
on this point.
[14]
Fifth, at the port-of-entry, Mr. Sarkarizi did
refer to his detentions for playing music and for wearing a t-shirt considered
to be offensive. The same account appears in his written narrative.
[15]
In its conclusion, the Board stated that the
cumulative effect of its concerns about Mr. Sarkarizi’s credibility led it to
believe that he would not experience persecution in Iran. In my view, several of the Board’s main concerns were not
supported by the evidence. Accordingly, its conclusion was unreasonable.
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[16]
A number of the Board’s adverse credibility
findings were not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, its conclusion that
Mr. Sarkarizi’s account of events could not be believed was unreasonable – it
did not fall within the range of acceptable outcomes based on the facts and the
law. Therefore, I must allow this application for judicial review and order a
new hearing before a different panel of the Board. Neither party proposed a
question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that
1.
The
application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is referred back to the
Board for a new hearing before a different panel;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content