Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 296

Date: 20060307

Docket: IMM-2342-05

Citation: 2006 FC 296

Ottawa, Ontario, March 7, 2006

PRESENT:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan

BETWEEN:

LINA LI

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                This is an application for judicial review of the March 15, 2005 decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) rejecting the Applicant's claim for Convention refugee status. The Applicant (Lina Li), a citizen of the People's Republic of China, claimed a well-founded fear of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group and/or political opinion as manifest in her selling of banned Falun Gong literature. The RPD dismissed her claim on the basis that she had not proven either her identity or her alleged fear of persecution with sufficient or credible evidence.

[2]                The Applicant arrived in Canada using a false passport. She attempted to establish her identity through a Resident Identity Card (RIC) and photocopy of a hukuo, a household register which identifies citizenship and relationships among family members.

[3]                On the issue of identity, the RPD drew negative inferences from the inconsistencies between her description of circumstances, the documents and her testimony attempting to explain away the inconsistencies. In particular, the RPD had difficulty with her inability to recall the false name she used to enter Canada, the absence of travel documents, and the inconsistencies between the hukuo and her testimony.

[4]                On the matter of her fear of persecution, the RPD found her evidence to lack credibility. The RPD based this negative determination on the discrepancies between her denial of having been charged with an offence and documents showing bail conditions, her inability to produce a copy of the charges and the absence of evidence that Falun Gong books she was selling were ever seized by the authorities.

[5]                In determining the standard of review, the Court must analyse what aspect of the decision is being challenged. Is it the credibility of the applicant's story or is it the validity of or, alternatively, the authenticity of documents? I adopt Justice O'Reilly's analysis in Bouyaya v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1290 (QL), 2005 FC 1042 that both the identity of an applicant and the authenticity of documents is subject to a patent unreasonableness standard whereas less deference is owed to the determination of the validity of foreign documents.

[6]                The RPD engaged essentially in an exercise of determining credibility of the Applicant based on the veracity of her evidence and the authenticity of her documents. The RPD examined inconsistencies and omissions between testimony and documents. Therefore, it engaged in an analysis for which the standard of review is patent unreasonableness.

[7]                The inconsistencies in her evidence provide more than a sufficient basis upon which the Board could reasonably conclude that the Applicant had not established her identity. There is no basis for this Court to reweigh the merits of the Applicant's attempts to explain or justify the inconsistent and implausible nature of her evidence.

[8]                The law is clear that once a tribunal has concluded that identity has not been established, the tribunal need not further analyse the evidence and the claim (see Husein v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 726 (QL)). Since the Applicant could not establish her identity and the Court has no basis for overturning the RPD's decision on this issue, this judicial review must be dismissed.

[9]                The application for judicial review will be dismissed and no question will be certified.

JUDGMENT

            IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.          The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.          There is no question for certification.

"Michael L. Phelan"

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-2342-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           Lina Li

                                                            v.

                                                            The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                       March 1, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:        Phelan J.

DATED:                                              March 7, 2006

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: