Ghorvei v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2254-96
Jerome A.C.J.
16/9/97
7 pp.
Judicial review of Minister's decision applicant should be removed from Canada-Applicant, Iranian citizen, deserting army-Arrested, detained for 23 months in Iran during which tortured, beaten-Accepted in Canada as Convention refugee, granted landed immigrant status on January 25, 1993-Arrested, charged for possession, trafficking in narcotics-Sentenced to four and one half years in prison-Minister forming opinion danger to public pursuant to Immigration Act, ss. 70(5), 53(1)(d)-Application allowed-Immigration officer's recommendation Minister consider applicant danger to public founded on two premises: applicant not having legitimate fear of persecution, convicted of serious offence-That no fear of persecution based on Joint Embassies Report, compiled by several different embassies, including Canadian Embassy, and describing human rights conditions in Iran-Contradicted major findings of country reports normally relied upon by Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration Appeal Division-Joint Embassies Report finding deserters from army and persons convicted of offences in other jurisdictions generally not subject to any form of harsh treatment upon return to Iran-Other country reports consistent in finding any anti-government activity carried extreme penalties-"Danger" report not containing any references to applicant's desertion, political activism in Iran, or that found to be refugee by UNHCR-Minister erred in not considering these relevant factors-In considering drug convictions, immigration officer not referring to positive endorsements, completed rehabilitation programs attesting to fact applicant conquered addiction, bettering himself while incarcerated-Although within Minister's discretion as to how evidence weighed, lack of any recital of new evidence giving impression not considered-Gibson J. in Shayesteh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 112 F.T.R. 161 (F.C.T.D.) finding review of Minister's opinion possible where serious issue to be tried as to validity of Minister's opinion-Unclear from immigration officer's report whether considered very important evidence or whether based report on improper considerations when forming recommendation to Minister-Actual notice of Joint Embassies Report should have been given to applicant not only because apparently only report relied upon by immigration officer, but more importantly because contradicts findings of country reports typically used in these matters-Material must not only be publicly available, but should be commonly available-When immigration officer relying heavily on evidence not commonly consulted, such evidence should be disclosed to applicant-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 53 (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 43; 1995, c. 15, s. 12), 70(5) (as am. idem, s. 13).