Date: 19990705
Docket: IMM-4181-98
Ottawa, Ontario, the 5th day of July 1999
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
SEYED HADI HOSSEINI
DOKHTAR-BAS FILIYEH
SEYED MEHRARDAD HOSSEINI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision dated July 10, 1998, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division, which determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19990705
Docket: IMM-4181-98
Between:
SEYED HADI HOSSEINI
DOKHTAR-BAS FILIYEH
SEYED MEHRARDAD HOSSEINI
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated July 10, 1998, which determined that the applicants, Seyed Hadi Hosseini, his wife Dokhtar-Bas Filiyeh and their son Seyed Mehrardad Hosseini, are not Convention refugees. The applicants, citizens of Iran, claim a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership in a particular social group and political opinion.
[2] The Refugee Division found the applicants were not credible, based principally on the vague and ambiguous testimony of the son, Seyed Mehrardad Hosseini, the main witness. The panel found that the applicant parents, older people in failing health, are not really Convention refugees, but simply came to Canada to join their children who have already settled here.
[3] The applicants" main argument, based on a denial of natural justice, is dismissed on the ground that the two errors of translation for which they claim the interpreter is responsible had no real impact on the panel"s adverse decision and there was accordingly no potential prejudice (see Haque v. M.C.I. (August 27, 1997), IMM-3136-96, Mila v. M.C.I. (October 29, 1993), T-2991-92, Diab v. M.E.I. (October 25, 1993), A-579-92, Dhillon v. M.E.I. (March 13, 1995), IMM-2341-94 and Mosa v. M.E.I. (1993), 154 N.R. 200). Furthermore, a reading of the transcript of the hearing before the panel gives no indication of any problem whatsoever with respect to translation (see Choudry v. Canada (S.E.C.) (1994), 24 Imm. L.R. (2d) 197).
[4] Moreover, with regard to the factual and credibility issues, after reviewing the evidence, I am not persuaded that the Refugee Division, a specialized tribunal which is presumed to have considered all of the evidence, based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. Without necessarily completely endorsing the panel"s analysis of the facts, I see no reason to intervene here.
[5] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[6] At the end of the hearing, after giving the parties the opportunity to propose one or more questions to be certified, as is only right, I refused to certify the unprepared question suggested verbally by counsel for the applicants with respect to the intervention of this Court when there is a translation error. I did not feel that the question was of general importance, in light of the relevant principles from the above case law, including the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Mosa, supra. As no other question was suggested at that time and no request made for time during which to do so, judgment was reserved.
[7] However, several days later, counsel for the applicants submitted the text of two other written questions to the Registry of this Court for certification. Although leave to proceed in this manner would normally have been required under the circumstances and without wanting to create a precedent, I nonetheless allowed the late and unexpected filing of the questions. After taking notice thereof, I am of the view that counsel for the applicants could and should have been ready to submit the written text before the conclusion of the hearing, during which no new issue was raised.
[8] Accordingly, there is no question here to be certified.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 5, 1999
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-4181-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: SEYED HADI HOSSEINI
DOKHTAR-BAS FILIYEH
SEYED MEHRARDAD HOSEINI
v.
THE MINISTER
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 22, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED JULY 5, 1999
APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM SLOAN FOR THE APPLICANTS
MICHEL PÉPIN FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
WILLIAM SLOAN FOR THE APPLICANTS
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content