Date: 20100430
Docket: IMM-2567-09
Citation: 2010 FC 476
Ottawa, Ontario, April 30, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
FEIFEI
FENG
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Ms. Feifei Feng came to Canada from China in 2002
as a student. She returned to China in 2004 and got married, and then came back
to Canada a few months later
with her husband. She learned that her mother began practising Falun Gong back
in China after her divorce from
Ms. Feng’s father. When a family friend visited Ms. Feng in Toronto in 2006, Ms. Feng sent some Falun
Gong materials back with her to be given to Ms. Feng’s mother. In 2007, Ms.
Feng found out that her mother had been arrested for her Falun Gong activities.
The Public Security Bureau (PSB) discovered that some of her materials had
originated with Ms. Feng. Now, Ms. Feng claims, the PSB wants to arrest her if
she returns to China.
[2]
Ms. Feng explained her situation to a panel of
the Immigration and Refugee Board in her claim for refugee protection in Canada. She also expressed concern for her
child, who would she felt not have any rights in China if Ms. Feng had to return there. The Board found her not to be a
credible witness.
[3]
Ms. Feng argues that the Board’s findings were
unreasonable and asks me to order another panel to reconsider her claim.
However, I can find no basis for overturning the Board’s decision and must,
therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[4]
The only issue is whether the Board’s decision
was reasonable.
II.
Analysis
(1)
The Board’s Decision
[5]
The Board found that Ms. Feng had not actually
sent Falun Gong materials to her mother. According to Ms. Feng’s testimony, she
inserted the materials into a gift box, which she then wrapped and gave to her
mother’s friend. She was aware that inspections at the airport were lax, so she
felt sure that the materials would not be discovered when her mother’s friend
returned to China. She did not
mention to the friend what was in the box, because she thought the friend would
not want to be involved in importing contraband materials.
[6]
The Board found it implausible that Ms. Feng, an
educated and intelligent young woman, would put her mother and her mother’s
friend at serious risk by her conduct. In addition, her assertion that
authorities would probably not find the materials was contradicted by her
efforts to secrete them in a gift box. Ms. Feng had printed the materials from
the Internet and provided the Board with a copy. But the Board noted that the
materials before it had been printed only eight days prior to the hearing and
could not, therefore, serve to prove what she had allegedly sent to her mother
two years earlier.
[7]
The Board also found that the PSB was not
actually looking for her. Ms. Feng had claimed that the PSB was looking
everywhere for her – at her home, and at the homes of friends and relatives.
However, in her written narrative, Ms. Feng had merely stated that the “PSB was
looking for me”, with no reference to any particular locations. The Board drew
a negative inference from this discrepancy. The Board also wondered why the PSB
would be looking for her in China, given that she had left with an exit permit. Surely, the Board
concluded, authorities would know she was out of the country.
[8]
Further, the Board concluded that Ms. Feng had
deliberately failed to keep immigration authorities informed of her
whereabouts, knowing that she was living in Canada without status. The Board drew a negative inference from her
intention to mislead authorities.
[9]
While Ms. Feng had not actually made her concern
about her child part of her refugee claim, the Board considered whether her
concern was valid. The Board concluded from the documentary evidence that Ms.
Feng’s worry might have been valid if she and her husband had violated China’s one-child policy, but they had not.
There was no evidence that Ms. Feng or her child would suffer any adverse
consequences on return to China.
(2)
Was the Board’s Decision Reasonable?
[10]
Ms. Feng argues that the Board’s conclusions
were not supported by the evidence. Further, she suggests that the Board made
gratuitous findings about her lack of status in Canada. This issue was irrelevant to her refugee claim.
[11]
Having reviewed the record, I cannot agree with
Ms. Feng’s assertion that the Board’s findings were not based on the evidence.
Its conclusion that Ms. Feng had not sent materials to her mother was based on
Ms. Feng’s testimony. The Board’s finding that her explanation was implausible
arose from her testimony about her intentions and actions regarding the Falun
Gong materials. It was not an unreasonable finding in light of that evidence.
Further, with regard to the evidentiary value of the printed materials put before
the Board, I cannot see any error in the Board’s observation that these
materials could not corroborate Ms. Feng’s description of the literature she
had sent or the fact that she had sent it.
[12]
With respect to the finding that the PSB was not
looking for her, again, the Board based its finding on omissions in Ms. Feng’s
written narrative, on her oral testimony and on the documentary evidence. I
cannot agree that the Board’s finding was unsupported by evidence.
[13]
Regarding the Board’s discussion of her immigration
status, I agree with Ms. Feng that this issue was not particularly relevant to
her refugee claim. However, Ms. Feng’s overall credibility was a central issue
to be decided by the Board and, for that reason, I cannot fault it for
considering her testimony about her immigration status even though it was,
strictly speaking, peripheral to her claim.
[14]
Therefore, I cannot conclude that the Board’s
decision was unreasonable.
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[15]
The Board’s conclusions fell within the range of
acceptable outcomes based on the facts and the law and, for that reason, I find
that it was reasonable. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for
judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me
to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content