Date: 20070528
Docket: IMM-4541-06
Citation: 2007 FC 551
Ottawa, Ontario, May 28,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
SAFAROV
RUSLAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Ruslan
Safarov is a medical doctor from Azerbaijan, who sought refugee
protection in Canada based upon
the persecution that he says that he encountered as a result of his alleged
involvement with the opposition Musavat Party. The Refugee Protection Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Dr. Safarov’s claim on the basis
that he was not credible.
[2]
Dr.
Safarov now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision, asserting that each
of the Board’s six primary findings of non-credibility was patently
unreasonable, and that, as a result, the decision should be set aside.
[3]
I
will review each of the disputed findings in turn. However, for the reasons
that follow, I am not persuaded that the Board erred in its over-all assessment
of Dr. Safarov’s credibility. As a consequence, the application for judicial
review will be dismissed.
Dr. Safarov’s Failure to
Identify the Secretary-General of the Musavat Party
[4]
In
the course of his testimony, Dr. Safarov was asked to identify the Secretary-General
of the Musavat Party. He was unable to do so, stating that he was not aware of
such a position within the Party.
[5]
The
Board found that one would reasonably have expected that a well-educated
individual such as Dr. Safarov, who claimed to have been active in the Party,
would know the identity of the Party’s Secretary-General, and that his
inability to identify the individual in question cast doubt on his claim to
active party membership.
[6]
In
argument, Dr. Safarov’s counsel pointed out that his client was testifying
through a Russian interpreter, suggesting that there may have been difficulties
in the way that the term “Secretary-General” was translated.
[7]
The
difficulty with this submission is that it is unsupported by the evidence. Dr.
Safarov’s affidavit deals directly with this area of questioning, and there is
nothing in his affidavit to suggest that there was any confusion in his mind
arising out of the terminology used by the interpreter.
[8]
Moreover,
there is no inconsistency in the country condition information with respect to
the title of the position held by Vergun Ayub. The second-in-command of the
Musavat Party is consistently referred to in the documentary evidence as the
“Secretary-General”.
[9]
It
is true that when Dr. Safarov was specifically asked if he knew who “Vergun
Ayub” was, he was able to identify Ayub as the second-in-command of the Party.
Nevertheless, given his inability to do so without prompting, it cannot be said
that the Board’s finding that Dr. Safarov’s credibility was called into
question by his inability to spontaneously identify the Secretary-General of
the Musavat Party was patently unreasonable.
The Participation of the
Musavat Party in a Multi-party Coalition
[10]
Dr.
Safarov was asked if the Musavat Party had ever participated in a coalition
whereby several opposition parties agreed to put forward a single, joint
candidate in an election. He said that this had not happened, and that each
party had acted on its own.
[11]
The
Board rejected Dr. Safarov’s testimony in this regard, stating that there had
been a coalition or agreement between several opposition parties, including the
Musavat Party, to present a single joint presidential candidate in the 2003
election.
[12]
I
agree with Dr. Safarov that the Board’s finding in this regard was patently
unreasonable. The documentary evidence discloses that while the leader of the
Musavat Party led an attempt to forge an alliance between opposition parties in
the lead-up to the 2003 election, the attempt was unsuccessful, and the effort
collapsed within two weeks. It does not appear that a single joint
presidential candidate was ever identified or put forward.
[13]
As
a result, it appears that Dr. Safarov’s testimony that there was no agreement
between the Musavat Party and other opposition parties to form a coalition and
present a single presidential candidate was quite correct.
Dr. Safarov’s Inability
to Identify the Name of the Party Newspaper
[14]
The
Board drew a negative inference from the fact that Dr. Safarov was unable to
properly identify the name of the Musavat Party newspaper. In my view, this
was entirely reasonable.
The Letter of
Attestation from the Musavat Party
[15]
Dr.
Safarov provided a copy of a 2006 letter from the Musavat Party attesting to
his membership in the party and his activities on its behalf. The Board had
concerns with respect to the authenticity of the letter arising out of the address
on the letterhead, and because of inconsistencies in Dr. Safarov’s testimony as
to the location of the party headquarters. The Board also chose to give the
letter no weight because of Dr. Safarov’s general lack of credibility.
[16]
Having
reviewed the relevant portions of the transcript, I am of the view that there
was nothing intrinsically implausible about Dr. Safarov’s claim that the party
headquarters had relocated to Mikra District No. 8, which was evidently in the
Binadagi area of the city of Baku.
[17]
That
said, Dr. Safarov initially testified that the headquarters of the Musavat
Party had been located at 47 Azerbaijan Prospect, but that the
party was no longer at that address, having been evicted by government forces
in 2003. When he was subsequently confronted with the fact that his letter of
attestation had the old address on the letterhead some three years after the
party relocated, he speculated that the party headquarters may have been moved
back to the old address.
[18]
Given
the inconsistencies in Dr. Safarov’s testimony on this point, it was not
unreasonable of the Board to decline to attach little weight to the letter.
The Medical Report
[19]
Dr.
Safarov provided a copy of a medical report which he says supported his claim
to have been beaten by police because of his participation in opposition
activities.
[20]
The
Board declined to attach any weight to the report because while Dr. Safarov
testified that he had been severely beaten on the soles of his feet, he did not
mention having any difficulty in walking in his testimony, and there was no
mention of any such injuries in the medical report.
[21]
Dr.
Safarov had explained in his testimony that the report was incomplete, as it
had likely been prepared by very junior medical personnel.
[22]
The
medical report is quite lengthy, and provides a detailed description of Dr.
Safarov’s injuries. The document states that he had multiple body injuries to
his head, right thigh and ribs. There is no mention of any injuries to Dr.
Safarov’s feet. The Board concluded that if Dr. Safarov had been beaten on the
soles of his feet as he claimed, the hospital report would have reflected
this. I can see nothing unreasonable about this conclusion.
Failure to Claim
Elsewhere
[23]
Dr.
Safarov spent three months in Germany before coming to Canada. He
testified that he did not attempt to seek refugee protection in that country as
people had told him that the process was time consuming and unlikely to
succeed.
[24]
The
Board did not accept this explanation, noting that Germany is a
signatory to the Refugee Convention, and that one would have expected a
well-educated man such as Dr. Safarov to have made proper inquiries about the
availability of asylum in Germany. The Board’s finding
in this regard was entirely open to it on the evidence.
Conclusion
[25]
While
I am satisfied that the Board’s finding with respect to the involvement of the
Musavat Party in a multi-party coalition was patently unreasonable, I am not
persuaded that this one error was sufficiently central to the Board’s analysis
as to warrant the decision being set aside. The Board had numerous other
reasons for finding that Dr. Safarov was not credible, which have withstood
judicial scrutiny.
[26]
As
a consequence, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[27]
Neither
party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES
that:
1. This application for
judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question
of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
Email this Content