Date: 20090611
Docket: IMM-5001-08
Citation: 2009 FC 617
Ottawa,
Ontario, June 11, 2009
PRESENT:
The Honourable Mr.
Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
VRAM DNOYAN
ANAHIT GASPARYAN
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1] It
is obvious that the evidence was not properly analyzed regarding the reasons
for the applicants’ fear within the context of country conditions.
II.
Judicial procedure
[2] On
September 22, 2008, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and
Refugee Board (Board) determined that the applicants were neither Convention
refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA).
[3] The
Board determined that the applicants were not credible.
III.
Facts
[4] The
principal applicant, Mr. Vram Dnoyan, and his wife, Ms. Anahit Gasparyan, are citizens
of Armenia of the Baha’i faith.
[5] In
essence, the principal applicant alleges having been pursued by people involved
in fraudulent real estate transactions who were said to be ‘‘protected’’ by the
local police authorities.
[6] The
applicants further allege that, as members of the Baha’i faith, they are
persecuted in Armenia.
IV. Issues
[7] (1)
Did the Board err by refusing to analyze testimonial evidence regarding the
reasons for the applicants’ fear?
(2) Did the Board err in
mentioning credibility issues without explaining their substance?
V.
Analysis
[8] The
Board’s decision is not supported by sufficient reasons. In fact, it is not
sufficient for the panel to simply mention [translation] ‘‘his clearly unbelievable,
contradictory and even implausible . . . evidence’’ (Decision at para. 13), the
fact that [translation]
‘‘the applicants’ testimony was very difficult and laborious’’ (Decision at para.
18), and that [translation]
‘‘The applicants were at times evasive and confused. I noted several implausibilities,
omissions, additions and contradictions during their testimony’’ (Decision at para.
20).
[9] The
Board has a duty to give its reasons and explain its decision so that the
applicants might understand the reasons for denying their claim. The Board’s
vague allegations with respect to their credibility should have been supported
by specific examples taken directly from the evidence in a clear, unambiguous
and precise way, ensuring that the country conditions are dealt with directly
with specific reference to context. This therefore requires an assurance that
excerpts are not quoted out of context but reflect the meaning as a whole.
VI.
Conclusion
[10] This
decision is not supported by sufficient reasons and the applicants have a right
to know the reasons for the Board’s negative finding. This lack of reasons
taints the decision. Therefore, the Federal Court is giving the applicants an
opportunity to be heard by a differently constituted panel.
JUDGMENT
THE
COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be
allowed and that the matter be referred to a differently constituted panel for
redetermination.
‘‘Michel M.J.
Shore’’
Certified
true translation
Sebastian
Desbarats, Translator
Email this Content