Molaei v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-1611-97
Muldoon J.
28/1/98
13 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD decision applicants not Convention refugees-Applicants citizens of Iran-Principal applicant claiming well-founded fear of persecution on basis of perceived political opinion-Spouse basing her claim on husband's claim-Primary applicant's father colonel in Iranian army during Shah's reign-Father arrested during revolution, sentenced to 20 years in prison-Father pardoned in 1985-Applicant denied admission to university because of father's involvement in Iranian army-Applicant and friend started business selling, installing satellite dishes-Hardliners in Iranian government considering satellite dishes anti-Islamic-Applicant arrested, beaten daily for one week-Released on payment of US$2000-For months bribed authorities $100 every two weeks not to arrest him-Arrested in July 1994, imprisoned for one month for bribing officials, distributing western culture-Released on condition agreed to provide names of suppliers, customers-Resumed activities at store-In October summoned to appear before Komiteh within 30 days, but left Iran prior thereto-Refugee Claims Officer (RCO) not present at hearing, but outlining some issues to be determined in hearing, including whether events outlined amount to prosecution versus persecution-Despite fact RCO not present during hearing, CRDD stating "The claimant added few details while answering questions from the RCO"-CRDD not accepting as credible applicant's statements will be sentenced to long prison term or be executed-Holding punishment faced by applicant, should he be returned to Iran, amounting to prosecution, not persecution-Application dismissed-(1) While reference to RCO error, applicant not demonstrating error so grave as to constitute clear misunderstanding of principles; or that decision would have been different had error not been committed-(2) Applicants argued CRDD erred by failing to apply proper definition of "political opinion" in determining applicant's activities not falling under definition of "political opinion"-Relying on Bhatti v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 84 F.T.R. 145 (F.C.T.D.) in which held concept of indirect persecution premised on assumption family members likely to suffer great harm when close relatives persecuted-Bhatti overruled by Pour-Shariati v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1997), 215 N.R. 174 (F.C.A.)-Regardless, CRDD specifically referred to indirect persecution alleged by applicant as result of father's activities when noted able to live normally in Iran until problems arising following commercial venture-(3) Applicants argued CRDD erred in determining case one of prosecution, not persecution-Relying on Astudillo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1970), 31 N.R. 121 (F.C.A.) affirming that when determining whether activity political in nature, viewpoint should be that of government of country from which claimant alleging persecution-Applicant alleging detention, beatings as result of business activities proof Iranian government perceiving applicant's actions as political-Applicant not adducing evidence corroborating claim would face long prison term or execution for activities as alleged-Documentary evidence relied upon by CRDD indicating general fine $1000, maximum fine $2000-That CRDD not finding applicant's testimony regarding punishment faces credible should not be overturned unless made without regard to material before CRDD-Applicants not so demonstrating.