Docket:
IMM-4826-11
Citation:
2012 FC 796
Ottawa, Ontario, June 21, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
ZHAO JIA CHEN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr.
Zhao Jia Chen claimed refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of
religious persecution in China as a Roman Catholic. He maintains that the house
church he was attending in Guangdong was raided by the Public Security Bureau
[PSB] in 2009. He managed to escape and went into hiding. Mr. Chen also
contends that other congregants were arrested, and the PSB was looking for him,
too. As a result, he fled China and claimed refugee status in Canada.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied Mr. Chen’s claim mainly
because his account of events was not borne out by documentary evidence about
the treatment of Roman Catholics in Guangdong. Mr. Chen submits that the
Board’s decision was unreasonable. It wrongly rejected his testimony simply
because it was not corroborated by the documentary evidence. He asks me to
quash the Board’s decision and order a new hearing.
[3]
In
my view, the Board’s treatment of Mr. Chen’s evidence was not unreasonable. The
documentary evidence did not show that Roman Catholics are persecuted in Guangdong. The Board was entitled to rely on that evidence in reaching its conclusion that
Mr. Chen’s refugee claim was not made out. Accordingly, I must dismiss this
application for judicial review.
[4]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[5]
The
Board noted that the documentary evidence indicated that police authorities in China often leave a summons or arrest warrant with the family or friends of a suspect.
However, there was no evidence that they had done so in Mr. Chen’s case.
[6]
Further,
other documentary evidence showed that Catholics are persecuted in some areas
of China. Practices vary from region to region. In Guangdong, according to some
sources, authorities are quite tolerant. Further, given that there was
evidence of persecution of Catholics in more remote areas of China, one would have expected that any mistreatment in Guangdong would have been documented.
Further, most incidents of persecution involved bishops and priests, not
ordinary practitioners.
[7]
Based
on this evidence, the Board concluded that the PSB had not raided Mr. Chen’s
house church and were not pursuing him. In addition, while the Board accepted
that Mr. Chen was a genuine Catholic, it found that he would not face a serious
possibility of persecution or a substantial risk of cruel and unusual treatment
or punishment if he practised his faith in Guangdong.
III. Was the Board’s
Decision Unreasonable?
[8]
Mr.
Chen argues that the Board erred when it found that the PSB would likely have
issued a summons or warrant if it was truly interested in him. Further, he
contends that the Board erred by failing to make any specific finding that his
testimony was not credible. Instead, the Board merely compared his version of
events with the documentary evidence and concluded that his testimony was
improbable. These errors, Mr. Chen claims, lead the Board to render an
unreasonable decision.
[9]
In
my view, given the evidence before it, the Board’s decision was not
unreasonable.
[10]
The
evidence regarding issuance of a summons or warrant was equivocal. It showed
that this is a common practice, but that procedures varied across China. The Board considered Mr. Chen’s evidence that the PSB had made numerous inquiries
about him and had arrested other members of his church and concluded that, in
these circumstances, it is likely that the PSB would have left a summons or
warrant with Mr. Chen’s family. That was not an unreasonable finding on the
evidence.
[11]
Regarding
the credibility finding, the Board is entitled to weigh the evidence before it,
including the documentary evidence, and must determine whether the claimant has
established a well-founded fear of persecution or a substantial risk of cruel
and unusual treatment or punishment. Here, the Board was not satisfied that Mr.
Chen had met that burden. It found that Mr. Chen’s testimony about the raid,
the PSB’s activities, and the arrests of others was inconsistent with the
objective documentary evidence. This was a sufficient basis for discounting Mr.
Chen’s testimony. It was unnecessary for the Board to give further reasons for
doubting Mr .Chen’s credibility.
[12]
In
any case, the documentary evidence showed that it was unlikely that Mr. Chen would
face persecution on his return to China. His claim was simply not supported by
evidence about the current conditions in Guangdong.
[13]
Therefore,
I cannot conclude that the Board’s decision was unreasonable. It fell within
the range of defensible outcomes based on the facts and the law.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[14]
The
Board considered and weighed the evidence before it and concluded that Mr.
Chen’s claim had not been made out. That conclusion was not unreasonable in
light of the documentary evidence about the situation in Guangdong.
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