Date: 20060822
Docket: IMM-7102-05
Citation: 2006 FC 1013
Toronto,
Ontario, August 22,
2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
GUO
QUAN YANG (a.k.a. Guoquan Yang)
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant Guo Quan Yang is a twenty-four year old single male national of the Peoples Republic of China
(PRC). He sought protection in Canada as a Convention refugee
based on his membership in a particular social group, a practitioner of Falun
Gong which is banned in the PRC. His claim for protection was rejected by a
decision of a Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated
November 3, 2005. The Applicant seeks judicial review by this Court of that
decision.
[2]
The
Applicant’s history, as presented to the Member, was that he suffered from pains
in the joints possibly arthritis, a condition that was aggravated when he
played basketball for his local school in China. He stated
that the medical treatment he sought proved to be ineffective; only when, at
the suggestion of a friend, he sought relief through the practice of Falun
Gong, was he able to alleviate his condition. The Applicant said that he came
to Canada where he
continued in the practice of Falun Gong. Since he has been in Canada the
Applicant says that a friend in China was visited by PRC
public security officers, the PSB, and tortured so as to force him to reveal the
Applicant’s whereabouts. The Applicant says that the PSB also visited his
parents but without apparent serious incident.
[3]
The
Member considered the Applicant’s submissions but found them not to be
credible. The Member found that the medical documents concerning the alleged
arthritic condition submitted to support the claim were fraudulent and that the
Applicant’s knowledge of basketball was quite minimal. In all, the Member
concluded that the Applicant did not suffer the injuries claimed as a result of
basketball, nor did he commence practicing Falun Gong in China. The Member
concluded that the Applicant began practicing Falun Gong in Canada as a matter
of convenience in order to advance his claim for protection as a Convention
refugee. With this in mind, the Member considered whether there would be a
serious risk to the Applicant’s life or risk of cruel or unusual treatment or
punishment or torture if the Applicant were to return to China. The Member
concluded that there was no such risk. He found that the PSB probably already
knew that the Applicant was out of the country and in Canada and that
their treatment of his parents was benign. He concluded that the Applicant was
not being sought by the PSB for any reason.
[4]
The
Applicant, in this Court, submits that the Member’s findings cannot withstand
scrutiny. The Applicant points out that the questioning of the Applicant as to
his knowledge of basketball was confounded by the interpreter’s inabilities,
not the Applicant’s, as to terms used in the sport. The Applicant also points
out that scepticism expressed by the Member as to the genuineness of the
medical reports arose not from the reports themselves, which were in Chinese,
but the interpreter’s version of the reports. I agree that these criticisms are
valid, however, these criticisms do not affect the main issue.
[5]
The main issue before the Member was clearly expressed by him in
his reasons, namely, does the Applicant’s practice of Falun Gong, whether it
began in China, or later in Canada, put him at risk. The Member concluded it
would not. On that issue the Member considered the Applicant’s evidence as to
the PSB and their dealings with his friend and his parents in China. Counsel
for the Applicant submits that this risk finding is not founded on the evidence
that was before the Member. However, it is for the Member to weigh the
evidence. The Court may only interfere if the Board’s findings are patently
unreasonable. That is, where there was clearly no credible evidence upon which
the Member could have came to the conclusions expressed in the evidence. Here
there is credible evidence upon which the Member could have come to the
conclusions stated and, while there was other evidence to the contrary, it is
for the Member to weigh the evidence and arrive at the conclusions expressed in
the Reasons. I am not persuaded, in considering the decision as a whole, this
Court should intervene and set aside the Member’s decision.
[6] The
application is therefore dismissed without costs. Counsel for the Applicant
and Respondent both submit there is no question for certification and I also
find there is no question that should be certified.
JUDGMENT
UPON application
made to this Court on the 22nd day of August, 2006, for judicial
review of a decision of a Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated
November 3, 2005, wherein the Applicant’s claim for Convention refugee
protection was rejected;
AND UPON reviewing the
Records filed herein and hearing submission from counsel for the parties;
AND for the Reasons
provided herewith;
THIS COURT ADJUDGES that
1.
The
application is dismissed;
2.
There
is no question for certification; and
3.
There
is no order as to costs.
“Roger T.
Hughes”
Email this Content