Date: 20050314
Docket: IMM-7257-04
Citation: 2005 FC 360
Ottawa, Ontario, March 14, 2005
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
MAHMOOD CHOBINEH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This application for judicial review was filed under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 c. 27 (the Act), with regard to a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board or the panel), dated August 3, 2004, that the applicant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act or a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Act.
ISSUE
[2] Did the panel commit a patently unreasonable error in its assessment of the evidence and in its analysis of the applicant's credibility?
[3] For the reasons set out below, I must answer this question in the negative.
BACKGROUND
[4] The applicant is a citizen of Iran. He alleges that he has a well-founded fear of persecution owing to his political opinions and his membership in the Jebheyeh Mosharekat Montakhab Shiraz political movement. He contends that his life would be in serious danger if he had to return to his country of origin.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[5] The Board concluded that the applicant's story was not credible. Moreover, it concluded that his behaviour during the period between November 1, 2002, the day on which the applicant allegedly decided to flee Iran, and his departure for Canada on July 9, 2003, was not that of a person who reasonably feared for his life or feared persecution.
ANALYSIS
[6] It should be noted that we are dealing with a de novo hearing decreed by the Board's administration owing to the fact that member Thibault, who heard the case the first time, left the Board three weeks after the hearing without rendering a decision. During the de novo hearing, the Board had before it transcripts of the first hearing.
1. Did the panel commit a patently unreasonable error in its assessment of the evidence and its analysis of the applicant's credibility?
[7] Determining the applicant's credibility and assessing the evidence are central to the Board's jurisdiction. In Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) at pages 316 and 317, the Federal Court of Appeal indicated that the Board, as a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony and evaluate the evidentiary weight of the evidence.
[8] The Board gave several reasons to justify its conclusion that the applicant was not credible:
- The applicant alleges that his employment was terminated by the authorities, although the letter he submitted indicates nothing of the kind;
- The applicant delayed leaving his country and claiming refugee protection in Canada;
- He neglected to mention in his Personal Information Form (PIF) that he was wanted;
- He claims to belong to the Jebheyeh Mosharekat group, although the documentary evidence makes no reference to this;
- He claims to have left Iran without any problems, although independent documentary evidence indicates that it is very difficult for someone who is wanted to leave the country.
[9] After analysing the file and the evidence submitted, I cannot conclude that a patently unreasonable error was committed. The panel may prefer documentary evidence to a claimant's testimony (Zhou v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1087 (F.C.A.) (QL)).
[10] The applicant criticizes the Board for not taking into account the warrant issued for his arrest. However, pages 1 and 4 of the decision clearly show that the panel did indeed take the warrant into account.
[11] The applicant also alleges that the Board acted arbitrarily by neglecting to evaluate his credibility and relying on the transcripts of the first hearing. It should be noted that the same counsel who represented the applicant at the first hearing did not object to the transcripts being submitted at the second hearing.
[12] At the second hearing, the panel made sure to give the applicant a chance to clarify any issues that seemed to cause problems, especially his membership in Jebheyeh Mosharekat. According to the applicant, some 500 people belonged to this group; however, he was not able to obtain confirmation, by way of a letter or a membership card, that he was a member of the group, even though he had had six months between the first and the second hearing to do so. This issue, central to the applicant's refugee claim, was discussed at the second hearing.
[13] The decision-maker preferred the independent documentary evidence to the applicant's testimony regarding his leaving Iran. The intervention of our Court is not required here (Rahaman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 3 F.C. 537 (F.C.A.) at paragraph 29).
[14] The Board's conclusions are not patently unreasonable. On the contrary, they are supported by the evidence.
[15] The parties had an opportunity to submit questions for certification. This case includes no such questions.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be dismissed. There is no question to be certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
Certified true translation
Magda Hentel
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7257-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MAHMOOD CHOBINEH
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 9, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
DATED: March 14, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Louis Nadeau FOR THE APPLICANT
Michèle Joubert FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Louis Nadeau FOR THE APPLICANT
5022 Côte des Neiges, Suite 3
Montréal, Quebec H3V 1G6
Michèle Joubert FOR THE RESPONDENT
Department of Justice
Guy Favreau Complex
200 René Lévesque Blvd. West, East Tower, 5th Floor
Montréal, Quebec H2Z 1X4