Digests

Mohammadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-3219-02

2003 FC 1028, Russell J.

5/9/03

20 pp.

Judicial review of Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) decision, dated May 31, 2002 applicant not Convention refugee--Numerous aspects of decision give rise to possible error but it stands on way Board handled sequence of events following demonstration at Tehran University and applicant's not leaving Iran sooner than he did--Applicant points out Board does not really confront and deal with evidence presented on aftermath of demonstration--Board merely rejects that evidence in vague and general terms as being "unsatisfactory" or uses its own hypothetical speculation about what might have happened--Difficult to understand why Board found applicant's description of how he went back to look for his cousin after demonstration to be incredible--Plausible applicant feared for his cousin's safety more than his own, and that bonds of family loyalty may have led him to engage in risky behaviour that might otherwise be indicative of lack of subjective fear--Also possible applicant's political convictions led him to engage in risky behaviour that may seem incredible to Canadian observer--Board does not do very good job of explaining why applicant's testimony unconvincing in this respect--Negative decisions on person's credibility properly made as long as tribunal gives reasons for so doing in "clear and unmistakable terms"--Board does not articulate credibility finding as well as it might have done, but sufficient explanation in decision on this point and sufficient evidentiary basis in form of inconsistencies in applicant's narrative to avoid reviewable error--Implausibility findings have to be based upon reasonable inferences from evidence actually before Board--In case at bar, Board never really makes kind of clear and unmistakable credibility findings that case law says are required for Board to reject applicant's testimony--Board's principal reason for rejecting applicant's account regarding issue of lack of subjective fear of persecution is that, if he and his family had suffered what applicant said they had suffered, they would have left Iran much sooner--Where Board finds lack of credibility based on inferences, including inferences concerning plausibility of testimony, there must be basis in evidence to support inferences--In case at bar, Board fails to articulate sufficient basis on evidence for this key point--Behind Board's conclusions in this regard lie host of assumptions and speculations for which no real evidentiary basis--For Board to have proceeded in this way was reviewable error--Judicial review allowed.