[1] Mr. Zhou is a citizen of the People=s Republic of China (APRC@) who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution because he is a believer and practitioner of Tian Dao. He brings this application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (ACRDD@) that he is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.
[2] The gist of the argument advanced on Mr. Zhou=s behalf is that, in rejecting his claim, the CRDD erred by concluding that the documentary evidence did not support allegations of recent persecution of Tian Dao members. This finding is said to be erroneous and fundamental to the decision of the CRDD. The following excerpt from the reasons of the CRDD is said to support the conclusion that the asserted error with respect to the assessment of the documentary evidence is fatal to the decision under review: The claimant=s testimony included inconsistencies and implausibilities and, at one point, in his testimony, his demeanour was a concern to the panel. By themselves these issues may not be significant enough to be fatal to the claimant=s story, but when considered as a whole and in conjunction with the lack of documentary evidence as described below, they do cause the panel to disbelieve the claimant=s account of his fears.
[3] Despite the articulate and persuasive submission of counsel for Mr. Zhou, I have not been persuaded that any error in the assessment of the documentary evidence is material to the decision of the CRDD. While the reasons of the CRDD could have been more carefully expressed with respect to its finding of credibility, I am satisfied that when read as a whole the reasons demonstrate that the CRDD did not believe Mr. Zhou=s testimony.
[4] In this regard, the CRDD expressly found Mr. Zhou=s testimony to include inconsistencies and implausibilities. Specifically, the CRDD found:
- it was implausible that he joined Tian Dao for family harmony in circumstances when all of his family refused to join, and his wife said that there would be Abig problems@ if he joined;
- Mr. Zhou failed to provide a clear, consistent and plausible account of the raid by the security forces which led to his decision to leave China;
- there was a significant discrepancy between his written narrative and his viva voce testimony as to where he fled after the raid; and
- Mr. Zhou=s demeanour at one point during the hearing was inexplicable.
[5] After setting forth these concerns in some detail, the CRDD wrote:
Because of these difficulties with the claimant=s testimony, the panel does not find the claimant to be credible. [underlining added]
[6] Later in its reasons, the CRDD wrote:
Based on all this evidence, the panel finds that the claimant learned most of what he knows about Tian Dao after he came to Canada. However, the question of whether this claimant was an active member of Tian Dao in China is not a determinative issue. This is because the panel does not believe his version of events, which supposedly caused him to leave China, and the documentary evidence does not support the view that members of the Tian Dao religion are being persecuted in China at this time. [underlining added]
[7] Mr. Zhou does not challenge the credibility findings of the CRDD.
[8] Mr. Zhou was required to satisfy the CRDD that any well-founded fear of persecution established by the documentary evidence would apply to him personally if he returns to the PRC. The conclusion of the CRDD that it did not believe his version of events is therefore fatal to Mr. Zhou=s claim. Put another way, the credibility findings of the CRDD made the documentary evidence about country conditions immaterial because Mr. Zhou was precluded from arguing that he was similarly situated to any evidence of persecution of the followers of Tian Dao.
[9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. Counsel posed no question for certification and no question arises on this record.
ORDER
[10] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
AEleanor R. Dawson@
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4264-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jin Shi Zhou v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: July 3, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER:
AND ORDER: Hon. Madam Justice Dawson
DATED: July 16, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Hart Kaminker FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Andrea Hammell FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kranc & Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General FOR THE RESPONDENT
of Canada
Email this Content