Digests

Khorasani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-3198-01

2002 FCT 936, Blanchard J.

4/9/02

16 pp.

Judicial review of CRDD's decision applicants not Convention refugees--Applicants (husband, wife, son) citizens of Iran--Husband claiming well-founded fear of persecution at hands of Iranian authorities on account of perceived political opinion as result of collaboration with father-in-law, outspoken critic of government regarding policies on truck drivers--Wife claiming as family member of person (father) sought by Iranian authorities as opponent of regime, also as fearing persecution on ground authorities knew provided sanctuary to late father at time when fugitive from persecuting authorities--Son relied on testimony of parents in support of claim--CRDD, based on several contradictions, omissions, implausibilities in testimony, not finding adult claimants' testimony credible, trustworthy--Issues whether CRDD erred by failing to consider wife's evidence independent of husband's evidence, on own merit; whether CRDD treated wife's claim as subordinate to husband's by characterizing husband as "principal applicant", thereby violating right to equality guaranteed by Charter, s. 15; whether confusion in translation of applicants' testimony; whether CRDD based decision on erroneous finding of fact made in perverse or capricious manner or without regard for material before it--Application dismissed--No evidence wife had distinct experiences from those of husband--CRDD not denying wife right to be heard, as both claims based on same factual foundation-- CRDD not erring in joining two refugee claims, and wife's claim fully, fairly heard--No evidence to support applicants' argument of Charter, s. 15 violation--Wife's claim essentially based on same facts as that of husband; all evidence considered by CRDD--In Mohammadian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 4 F.C. 85 (C.A.), Court held that when claimant does nothing to indicate concern with quality of interpretation at hearing, CRDD has no way of knowing interpretation deficient--Here, discrepancies should have been detected at hearing, alleged deficiencies in translation raised then--No affidavit from translator setting out inaccuracies--Furthermore, review of transcript not disclosing problem with quality of interpretation--Finally, except for one minor error, CRDD's findings not perverse, capricious, manifestly unreasonable or unsupported by evidence-- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 15.