Date: 20050222
Docket: IMM-1810-04
Citation: 2005 FC 269
Ottawa, Ontario, this 22nd day of February, 2005
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMEDSAIED LAVASANI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Lavasani is an Iranian citizen who claims a well-founded fear of persecution because of anti-government political opinions. He seeks judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board that found that his claim was not credible. For the reasons below, I can find no reviewable error in that decision and will dismiss this application.
[2] The issue before me was whether the Board failed to consider the totality of the evidence.
[3] In 1990, Mr. Lavasani was arrested for hosting a party at which alcohol was served. He was released on an undertaking not to misbehave again. In 1998, he was detained and questioned for purchasing anti-government newspapers at a street kiosk for his colleagues at work. Again, he was released upon signing an undertaking that he would not engage in anti-government activity and would report when requested. Neither of these events was questioned by the Board.
[4] On June13, 2003, Mr. Lavasani says he agreed to drive his two daughters to a university protest. He claims that he was stuck in a traffic jam caused by the protest about three kilometres from the site. He remained there for about three hours and then gave up and went home. He saw Revolutionary Guards photographing people and licence plates.
[5] Prior to this event, Mr. Lavasani had applied for a visa to visit his brother in Canada and left Iran two weeks after the protest. He had previously visited Canada in 2001 and returned to Iran after 45 days. He says he learned on July 10, while in Canada, that the Revolutionary Guards had been to his home looking for him. He claims that some of his friends who also had two prior warnings had not yet been released from detention following their arrests for involvement in the protest. He made a refugee claim the next day.
[6] The Board found inconsistencies in Mr. Lavasani's description of the protest event between his Personal Information Form ("PIF") and his testimony at the hearing. The Board found that the PIF implied that the applicant had attended the rally and that he changed his story when he realized he could not credibly answer questions about what occurred at the protest.
[7] The Board concluded that the claimant did not give an adequate explanation for the difference in the level of participation in the rally between his testimony and his narrative. Mr. Lavasani contends that the Board's reasons for this finding are inadequate in that they were not clear and unmistakable: Hilo v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 199 (F.C.A.).
[8] The respondent submits that the Board's reasons clearly identified why it rejected his testimony about the protest rally. It did not believe his explanations and there is no doubt why it made an adverse credibility finding: Hilo, supra; Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.). Further, the applicant does not demonstrate how the Board misconstrued his evidence about the timing of his application for a visa. The Board was not obligated to accept the explanation for the discrepancy: Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 213 F.T.R. 14 (T.D.
[9] Secondly, the Board found it "implausible that the authorities would go to the extent of tracking cars among many hundreds, if not thousands, caught in a three-kilometre long traffic jam. They would have the weakest of grounds to link persons in a car jam to the student protest."
[10] Mr. Lavasani submits that his account of Revolutionary Guard behaviour is consistent with the documentary evidence, which the Board failed to allude to, that indicates an oppressive security presence in Iran and the lengths to which the authorities go to suppress dissent. The respondent relies on the presumption that the documentary evidence was considered and need not be expressly cited in the Board's reasons.
[11] Third, the Board drew a negative inference from the fact that the PIF narrative states that Mr. Lavasani fled in fear from Iran when he indicated at the hearing, when it was apparent that he had applied for the visa well in advance of the protest rally, that he did not fear returning to Iran until after he was already in Canada. At the hearing, Mr. Lavasani claimed that there must have been an error in the translation of the PIF although it had been read back to him prior to his signing and he had sworn to its accuracy at the outset of the hearing. He argues that this explanation was reasonable and should have been accepted by the Board. The respondent contends the Board's finding was open to it on the evidence.
[12] Finally, the Board noted a minor discrepancy in the PIF narrative, Port of Entry notes and hearing. Mr. Lavasani was not clear on whether he heard of his danger from his wife or his daughters. The Board concluded that he was not really describing what he had experienced and that was why he gave a different version of events in the POE notes and the narrative.
[13] Findings of fact made by the Board can be reviewed only if they are erroneous and made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the evidence, i.e., on a standard of patent unreasonableness: Liang v.Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No.1904.
[14] In my view, the Board's findings in this case were open to it on the evidence and are not patently unreasonable.
[15] No questions of general importance were proposed and none will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for judicial review is dismissed. No questions are certified.
" Richard G. Mosley "
F.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1810-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMEDSAIED LAVASANI
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 16, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY : The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
DATED: February 22, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Christina Gural FOR THE APPLICANT
Matina Karvellas FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CHRISTINA GURAL FOR THE APPLICANT
Gertler & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
Email this Content