Date: 19990519
Docket: IMM-2809-98
BETWEEN:
ISAAC MASOUDI RAD and
ESHRAT FARSI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
McGILLIS J.
[1] The applicants have challenged by way of judicial review a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") that they were not Convention refugees. The applicants are citizens of Iran.
[2] In its decision, the Board concluded, among other things, that the principal applicant's evidence was not credible and trustworthy. In support of its decision, the Board noted two inconsistencies in his evidence concerning his anti-government activities in the 1980's. However, the Board held that this was not "the crux of the claim", as it was the principal applicant's involvement in anti-government activities in the 1990's that precipitated their departure from Iran.
[3] In analysing the principal applicant's evidence concerning his political activities in the 1990's, the Board gave three examples to support its finding that his evidence was not credible or trustworthy. First, the evidence concerning his anti-government activities in the 1990's was not credible on the basis that his evidence in relation to his 1980's activities was "more detailed". Second, the evidence concerning what transpired at his apartment building was "confusing" and inconsistent. Third, the evidence concerning the summons allegedly issued to him by the Iranian authorities was not plausible.
[4] Following its credibility findings in relation to the principal applicant's anti-government activities in the 1990's, the Board stated that it had "credibility concerns in other areas". Despite those concerns, the Board stated that it "...found it sufficient to make a conclusion since the [principal applicant's] evidence was not credible or trustworthy as it related to the summons and the evidence pertaining to [his] re-involvement with anti-government activities in 1994."
[5] During the course of his submissions, counsel for the respondent candidly conceded that he could not make submissions in support of the Board's finding that the principal applicant's evidence concerning his activities in the 1990's was not as "detailed" as that pertaining to his activities in the 1980's, or in support of its finding that his evidence was "confusing" in relation to the events at his apartment. As a result, the only remaining credibility finding relates to the summons.
[6] In its analysis of the evidence concerning the summons, the Board stated as follows:
| |
A major concern in the principal [applicant"s] testimony dealt with the summons, and the fact that his family did not advise him of it. The [applicant] testified that he found the summons in a dictionary while already in Canada. The panel notes that the summons presented as evidence is a photocopy, not an original, and therefore the panel was unable to confirm its authenticity by ordering a forensic examination. |
|
| |
The panel found this whole area of testimony not plausible. It makes no sense whatsoever that the [applicant"s] family, who had contact with the [applicant] when they were allegedly in hiding in Iran would not tell him of the summons. There are many scenarios where this action could lead to great difficulties forInstead they just hid it in a book (dictionary) hoping the [applicant] would find it at some later date. the [applicants]. |
|
[7] Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Board erred by misconstruing the evidence in relation to the summons. I agree with that submission. In summarizing the evidence concerning the summons, the Board found that it made "no sense" for the principal applicant's family not to tell him about the summons, and to hide it in a dictionary "hoping" that he would find it at some later date. However, the evidence at the hearing indicated that it was not the principal applicant's family that sent him the summons, but rather a friend of the female applicant. That friend sent a dictionary to the applicants in Canada, with the summons hidden in it. She later informed the applicants in a telephone call that there was a "very important paper" in the dictionary. The Board's finding of implausibility on the central question concerning the summons was therefore based, at least in part, on a misconstruction of the evidence adduced at the hearing. Furthermore, its other two credibility findings concerning the "crux" of the applicants' case were conceded to be erroneous. In the circumstances, the Board's decision cannot stand.
[8] The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Board dated May 1, 1998 is quashed and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted Board for rehearing and redetermination.
"D. McGillis"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
May 19, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ISAAC MASOUDI RAD and |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: McGILLIS J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Raoul Boulakia
For the Applicants
Mr. Kevin Lunney
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Raoul Boulakia
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990519
Docket: IMM-2809-98
Between:
Applicants
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
Email this Content