Assadi v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2683-96
Teitelbaum J.
25/3/97
7 pp.
Judicial review of Immigration and Refugee Board, CRDD decision applicant Iranian not Convention refugee-Board questioning applicant's credibility, highlighting numerous implausibilities in testimony-Focussing on conduct inconsistent with well-founded fear of persecution i.e. applicant remaining in Iran for three years after difficulties with authorities arising; spending year in Spain without claiming refugee status-Concluding combined effect of inconsistencies rendering applicant's story neither credible nor trustworthy i.e. as Mujahadin supporter, applicant would have endured far worse treatment than recounted; confusion over date when first went into hiding; not detected, harassed on uncle's farm for two years; late intellectual awakening in Canada-Applicant alleging denial of fair hearing because Board using standard form "boiler-plate" reasons-Key passages in Board's reasons virtually identical to two other decisions-Same presiding member in all three cases-Application dismissed-Worrisome Board cutting, pasting entire passages from one decision to another as whether justice done often question of perception-Simply inserting individual's name into "cookie-cutter" formula leaving applicant in doubt about fairness of process-Use of precedents in preparing reasons not necessarily resulting in denial of natural justice: Samkov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 90 F.T.R. 100 (F.C.T.D.) (obiter)-Decision-makers must reach own decisions on facts before them-Board's reasons not entirely tainted-Standardized passages forming only minor part of reasons, largely concerning legal tests, case law for implausibilities-But standard passages on usual dire fate awaiting Mujahadin supporter, implausibility of hiding out undetected with relative, more troubling-Aside from standard passages, Board carefully, thoroughly analyzing particulars of applicant's case i.e. 10 arrests, nature of home town, intellectual status, loss of religion-From numerous references in reasons to applicant's testimony, no sense Board's decision foregone conclusion-Applicant alleging Board finding applicant implausible in light of historical record because highlighting wrong era in Iran's history-Immediately after 1979 Revolution, religious authorities neither centralizing nor consolidating power-Unable to pursue applicant from home town to uncle's farm-In same period Mujahadin neither outlawed nor as ruthlessly persecuted as in subsequent years-Board vulnerable on reasonableness of inferences regarding implausibility of applicant's arrests, but findings not so unreasonable as to warrant judicial review-Parizi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1994), 90 F.T.R. 189 (F.C.T.D.) distinguished-If Board emphasizing historical record, must accurately fix backdrop at time relevant for claimant: Boucher v. Canada (Immigration Appeal Board) (1989), 105 N.R. 66 (F.C.A.)-Applicant leaving Iran in 1985-Board citing three documentary records relating to events since 1988-Apart from historically inaccurate analysis of Mujahadin and assumptions not necessarily borne out by evidence, little merit to applicant's submissions-Board's probing questioning of applicant about numerous arrests, "hiding" out, sojourn in Spain, revealing Board's characterizations, findings of non-credibility, implausibility reasonable, supported by evidence-Board giving negative findings with respect to applicant's credibility in clear, unequivocal terms-Board citing Ilie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1994), 88 F.T.R. 220 for expectation claimant would seek refuge in country signatory to International Convention-Failure to immediately seek protection can impugn claimant's credibility-Weak explanations for applicant's failure to seek protection in Spain-Board fully, correctly, reasonably setting out why applicant's conduct in Spain inconsistent with well-founded fear of persecution-Madoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 1372 (Q.L.), where Board permitted to look to failure to claim refugee status in intervening countries applied-Board's inferences not so unreasonable as to warrant judicial intervention.