ALI SADEGHI FAR Applicant - v. -, 2003 FCT 367

Date: 2003-03-28 Docket: IMM-1843-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 367 Ottawa, Ontario, March 28, 2003 Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY BETWEEN: ALI SADEGHI FAR Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Mr. Ali Sadeghi Far is 32 years old and a citizen of Iran. He made a claim for refugee status on his arrival in Canada in 2000. The Immigration and Refugee Board denied his claim in a decision dated March 18, 2002, primarily because of a lack of credible evidence supporting it. Mr.

Sadeghi Far argues that the Board's conclusion was unjustified by the evidence before it and inadequately explained. [ 2 ] Mr. Sadeghi Far's family was opposed to the revolutionary Islamic regime. His father and brother were involved with the Mujahedin. In due course, both left Iran, as did the rest of his immediate family, while Mr. Sadeghi Far remained. After his family's departure in 1995, Mr. Sadeghi Far was arrested and questioned about their whereabouts and activities. [ 3 ] He was also arrested on a number of subsequent occasions.

In 1997, he was falsely accused of tearing up a picture of a presidential candidate. He was detained for four days and beaten. In 1998, he was detained after holding a private party at his residence. Authorities thought it was a political gathering. He was held in custody for seven days. In 1999, he was detained twice, for a day each time, to be questioned about a neighbour who was a student activist. [ 4 ] Mr. Sadeghi Far says that the events that lead to his departure from Iran occurred in late 1999. He was working at a dry cleaner.

The two owners were somewhat politically active and were in opposition to the ruling authorities. They attended student demonstrations. In December 1999, the business was raided by the authorities. Mr. Sadeghi Far says that he was out for lunch at the time and received a call from a co-worker named Touraj warning him not to return to work. The applicant went into hiding on the advice of his relatives. He later learned through relatives that the authorities had been asking about him because they had found pictures of him at the student demonstrations. He also found out that Touraj had fled Iran. [ 5 ] Mr.

Sadeghi Far says he remained in hiding for two months while arrangements were made for his passage out of the country to Turkey. He spent some time in Turkey and eventually made his way to the United States. He made a refugee claim there, but was under the impression that his chances were better in Canada, notwithstanding that his parents and sister had been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain refugee status in Canada. He says he deliberately exaggerated his claim in the United States in order to obtain release from custody.

Once released, he travelled to the Canadian border and made a refugee claim in Niagara Falls. A. The Main Issue - The Board's Conclusions on Credibility [ 6 ] Mr. Sadeghi Far disputes the bases on which the Board found his account of events not to be credible and questions the adequacy of the reasons it gave for its conclusions. [ 7 ] The Board expressed general doubts about the veracity of the evidence supporting Mr, Sadeghi Far's application.

It made a pivotal finding that the events in late 1999, namely the authorities' raid on the premises of the dry cleaner and subsequent pursuit of the applicant, never happened. It did not believe, therefore, that Mr. Sadeghi Far went into hiding or fled because of concern about his personal safety. [ 8 ] The Board's conclusions derived from a number of aspects of the evidence, as well as from the absence of evidence in certain areas. It found it to be an "amazing coincidence" that Mr. Sadeghi Far had a family connection with Touraj, his co-worker at the dry-cleaning shop.

The applicant stated that he gave his father's cousin's phone number to Touraj after he learned about the raid. This connection allowed him to keep informed of further developments. At the hearing before the Board, Mr. Sadeghi Far said that the two families, in fact, knew one another. This had not been disclosed in the applicant's Personal Information Form (PIF). This evidence took the Board by surprise and, as mentioned, it concluded that it amounted to an "amazing coincidence" which cast doubt on Mr. Sadeghi Far's version of events. It also referred to this contact as a "complex communications network".

[ 9 ] The Board also noted a discrepancy between Mr. Sadeghi Far's PIF, which refers to the family member who was in contact with Touraj's family as his "cousin", as compared to his oral testimony in which he referred to this person as his "father's cousin". [ 10 ] Other aspects of the evidence troubled the Board. It felt it had not received a satisfactory explanation as to why Mr. Sadeghi Far remained in hiding for as long as two months if he thought he was in personal jeopardy.

It questioned why the authorities were focussed on the applicant at all since he had not participated in any political activities and had not, in fact, attended any demonstrations or other political events. Indeed, his co-workers did not participate in the demonstrations either - they were merely observers. There could not have been any authentic photographs showing him involved in demonstrations since he had no interest in them and never attended any. By his own testimony, he stayed out of politics and had his own life in Tehran. The Board found that the authorities were simply not interested in Mr.

Sadeghi Far, nor even in his co-workers. [ 11 ] The Board was also clearly troubled by the applicant's decision to make a false statement to the immigration authorities in the United States. There was a stark difference between his story in the United States and that which he gave in Canada. In the United States, he claimed active involvement in the student demonstrations and other political activities, and said that he had been detained for comparatively lengthy periods. Given its concerns about the evidence provided by Mr.

Sadeghi Far, the Board concluded that he had been untruthful both in the United States and Canada. [ 12 ] There was no corroborative evidence before the Board in relation to the raid or its aftermath. It had nothing to go on but Mr. Sadeghi Far's testimony and his PIF. [ 13 ] The Board may or may not have been justified in its concerns about the evidence relating to Mr. Sadeghi Far's family connections with his co-worker, the communications that resulted from those connections and his interchanging use of the terms "cousin" and "father's cousin".

Certainly, the language it used to describe these matters seems rather overblown. But, in reality, in terms of the evidence before the Board and its overall analysis, these were relatively minor matters. They would not, in themselves, justify a conclusion that Mr. Sadeghi Far's account of events was not believable. Read as a whole, however, the reasons disclose other, firmer grounds for the Board's conclusions. [ 14 ] The Board found the overall scenario implausible. It thought it unlikely that the authorities were in pursuit of the applicant. He was neither interested in nor involved in politics.

He had not attended the demonstrations. None of his arrests was related to any political activism on his part. His association with his co-workers, who had only been peripherally involved in the demonstrations, was not close. There was no corroborative evidence with respect to the raid. Further, the Board had general concerns about the veracity of Mr. Sadeghi Far's testimony in light of the alternate version of events he gave in the United States. [ 15 ] In my view, the Board's conclusion that the events of late 1999, which formed the crux of Mr.

Sadeghi Far's claim of persecution, never occurred is supportable on the evidence and adequately explained. I cannot conclude that it was patently unreasonable. B. The Board's Characterization of the Mistreatment as "Discrimination", not "Persecution" [ 16 ] At the end of its reasons, the Board discussed whether the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Sadeghi Far amounted to persecution or whether it constituted discrimination. Counsel for the applicant argued that the Board must have been assuming, for purposes of that discussion, that Mr.

Sadeghi Far had actually been mistreated and, as such, failed to explain properly why the arrests, assaults and pursuit would not amount to persecution. [ 17 ] In my view, at that point in the decision, the Board had clearly found that the precipitous events of 1999 had not taken place. It was only considering whether the preceding arrests, the occurrence of which was not questioned, would amount to persecution. The Board had referred to the relatively minor nature of those arrests and the fact that Mr. Sadeghi Far himself did not consider them to be grounds for leaving Iran.

In that context, the Board's reasons, while brief, are adequate. [ 18 ] Accordingly, there is no basis for disturbing the conclusions arrived at by the Board and, therefore, this application for judicial review must be dismissed. No question of general importance was proposed for certification and none is stated. JUDGMENT IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is stated. "James W. O'Reilly" J.F.C.C. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1843-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: ALI SADEGHI FAR

Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 18, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY DATED: MARCH 28, 2003 APPEARANCES BY : Mr. Michael Crane FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. Stephen Jarvis FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Michael Crane Barrister and Solicitor Suite 100, 166 Pearl Street Toronto, OntarioM5H 1L3 FOR THE APPLICANT Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT