Ghayoumi-Moghadam v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-442-97
Tremblay-Lamer J.
20/10/97
8 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD denial of refugee status because lacked subjective, objective fear of persecution-Applicants Iranian citizens-Claiming well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, political opinion-Since 1979 Revolution male applicant no longer considering self of Muslim faith, although still believing in God-Never openly renouncing Islam-In 1995 applicant criticized government's policies, use of religion at social gathering-Claiming wanted by Iranian authorities because of comments-Fleeing Iran-Board erred in law in failing to assess female applicant's claim on basis of gender-Female applicant claiming Iranian state policy fundamentally persecutory towards women-Recounting incident where arrested for having violated Islamic dress code-Gender persecution warranting examination by Board-Board's conclusion based on findings: (1) unlikely applicant would be executed for having expressed anti-government views, especially as friend who committed similar digression arrested, released; (2) documentary evidence indicating members of certain political parties not discriminated against for expressing opposing views; (3) applicant able to leave Iran with own valid travel documents-In basing conclusion on these findings, Board not appreciating evidence adduced-Board not addressing conditional release, subsequent disappearance, despite fact logically raising inference applicant in danger if returned to Iran-Experiences of persons similarly situated to refugee claimant having important bearing on assessment of applicant's claim: Chaudri v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1986), 69 N.R. 114 (F.C.A.)-Board should have considered applicant's claim in light of experience of friend who had made similar comments at social gathering-Failure to do so error of law-Board misstating piece of documentary evidence on which relied to determine whether applicant having well-founded fear of persecution-Contrary to Board's assertions, documentary evidence stating members of political parties who express opinions in opposition to official positions discriminated against-Respondent arguing minor error not central to Board's decision-Speculative to conclude reliance on documentary evidence not convincing element in Board's decision-Not for Court to engage in speculation on possible outcome of case had Board not made erroneous finding-Board also failed to explore uncontradicted evidence pertaining to applicants' exit i.e. friend at airport checked whether applicant's name on blacklist, misleading authorities by stating vacationing in northern Iran-Application allowed.