Rafati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-3038-96

     IMM-3038-96

BETWEEN:

     RAMIN RAFATI,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

DUBÉ J:

     This application is for the judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Board ("the Board") dated July 24, 1996, wherein the Board determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.

     The applicant is a twenty-six year old citizen of Iran who came to Canada in the spring of 1995 and claimed refugee status immediately.

     The Board held that "there is before us no credible or trustworthy evidence upon which to base a determination that the claimant is a convention refugee". The Board found that two factors led it to its conclusion, namely major implausibilities in the evidence and conduct inconsistent with any well-founded fear of persecution. The specific implausibilities raised by the Board were, first, that it would have been impossible for the applicant to leave the Mehrabad airport undetected if the Iranian authorities had really been after him; second, if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution he would have claimed refugee status in Columbia, his first stop after leaving Iran; third, the father of the applicant who harboured the apprehended person in his home would have been pursued by the Iranian authorities at least as much as the applicant, but was not; fourth, if the Iranian authorities had been so interested in apprehending the applicant, they would have taken steps to locate him when he was in hiding at his uncle's house for six months before leaving Iran.

     The Board stated that the cumulative effect of all these implausibilities rendered the "claimant's evidence neither credible nor trustworthy".

     The jurisprudence in the matter has clearly established that a decision of a tribunal on questions of credibility ought not to be interfered with by a higher Court, unless the decision in question is based on some manifest errors or a wrong principle of law. In this instance, the Board has heard the applicant and found his evidence not to be credible. Moreover, it has shown why the events described by the applicant were implausible. It is not for this Court to hold that it might have come to a different conclusion.

     The application for judicial review is dismissed.

O T T A W A

June 6, 1997

     Judge