Docket: IMM-4184-11
Citation: 2012 FC 518
Ottawa, Ontario, May 3, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
ZHAOBIN WANG
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr.
Zhaobin Wang sought refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of religious
persecution in China as a devout Roman Catholic.
He claimed that, in 2009, officials raided the house church he attended and
arrested some of his fellow congregants.
[2]
A panel of
the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr. Wang’s application because he
was unable to establish his identity, his version of events was not credible,
and the risk of persecution in China, particularly in his home province of Fujian, was low.
[3]
Mr. Wang
argues that all of the Board’s conclusions were unreasonable and asks me to
quash its decision. In my view, the Board reasonably concluded that Mr. Wang
had not established his identity and, therefore, I need not consider the
reasonableness of its other conclusions. Accordingly, I must dismiss this
application for judicial review.
[4]
The sole
issue is whether the Board’s conclusion on the issue of identity was
reasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[5]
The Board found that
Mr. Wang had failed to prove that he was living in China at the relevant time. Mr. Wang claimed he was not asked to
produce supporting documents. However, the Board noted that he was specifically
asked to produce them, yet had made no effort to do so. The Board found that
none of the documents Mr. Wang had presented – an Occupational Qualification
Certificate issued in 2004 and a death certificate for an uncle issued in 2008
– actually showed that he was in China in 2009 when the alleged events occurred.
In addition, the Board held that some of Mr. Wang’s documents were fraudulent:
• Mr. Wang provided a photocopy of his first-generation
Resident Identity Card [RIC] issued in 2002, and as well as a voucher and receipt
for a second-generation RIC from 2009. Mr. Wang claimed that, in 2009, when he
applied for the new RIC, the PSB kept his previous one but did not issue a
replacement. However, documentary evidence stated that an old card is
surrendered when a new card is issued. In addition, Mr. Wang seemed unsure when
he had applied for his new RIC. Accordingly, the authenticity of Mr. Wang’s RIC
was suspect.
• According to the documentary
evidence, applicants for a driver’s licence must submit four colour
photographs, yet Mr. Wang said he only provided two. He also stated that there
was nothing else he needed to provide, but later agreed that he needed a
physical condition certificate. Mr. Wang was also confused about the year the
licence had been issued. In addition, it appeared the licence had been
tampered with.
[6]
The Board noted that
it was not obliged to send documents for forensic analysis (Kazadi v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 292; Farooqi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1396). It also recognized that
fraudulent documents from China were common. Therefore, it gave little
weight to Mr. Wang’s documents and found that he was probably not in China at the time of the house church raid.
[7]
The Board also
concluded that, while Mr. Wang’s testimony mainly served the purpose of
supporting a false refugee claim, it still had to determine whether he was a
genuine Christian. Mr. Wang testified that, shortly after arriving in Canada, he joined a Catholic Church. He produced a baptismal certificate
and a letter from his priest stating that he had been attending church services
since arriving in Canada. He also demonstrated some knowledge of
Roman Catholicism. Still, the Board found that Mr. Wang was not a genuine
practicing Roman Catholic, and would not be regarded as one in China.
[8]
Mr. Wang said that
the Public Security Bureau [PSB] came to his family’s home seven or eight times
to arrest him and search his home. He maintained that the PSB had not left a
summons or warrant with his family. However, the Board cited documentary
evidence indicating that police usually present a summons when they wish to
question someone. The Board concluded that a summons likely would have been
issued in circumstances where the PSB had come to Mr. Wang’s home numerous
times and had arrested other members of his church.
[9]
In any case, the
Board went on to assess Mr. Wang’s risk of persecution if he were a genuine
Roman Catholic. It noted that the Catholic Church is quite strong in Fujian province. There is sporadic persecution of underground
Catholic churches, mostly directed at clergy and ordained laypersons. There was
mixed information regarding the treatment of Christians in Fujian province. Several sources stated that authorities in Fujian were more tolerant than those in other Chinese provinces,
while others noted that Catholics in Fujian province are “tightly controlled” by
local authorities. Most of the information showed persecution of bishops and
priests in Fujian; evidence of persecution of ordinary
members of the Roman Catholic Church was limited.
[10]
Therefore, the Board
found that Mr. Wang was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of
protection.
III. Was the Board’s Conclusion on Identity
Unreasonable?
[11]
While he disputes
several of the Board’s findings, Mr. Wang has not seriously challenged the
Board’s finding on identity. The Board found that the documents provided by Mr.
Wang were either fraudulent or did not establish that he was in China at the time of the alleged events.
[12]
The Board found that
Mr. Wang’s explanation for not providing his original RIC was not consistent
with objective documentary evidence. That conclusion was reasonable on the
evidence before it. Mr. Wang was also unsure when his driver’s licence had been
issued and, in any case, the document had been tampered with. The Board
reasonably rejected that evidence.
[13]
Further, Mr. Wang’s
Occupational Qualification Certificate was issued in 2004, so the Board
reasonably discounted it as evidence that he was in Fujian province in 2009. Similarly, the death certificate for Mr.
Wang’s uncle was issued in September 2008. It does not help to prove that Mr.
Wang was present at the alleged events in 2009.
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[14]
The Board
reasonably concluded that the evidence relating to Mr. Wang’s identity did not
show that he was in China at the time of the alleged
persecution. 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