Date:
20121210
Docket:
IMM-2526-12
Citation:
2012 FC 1454
Ottawa, Ontario,
December 10, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
YUNXIN LIN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
In
2009, Mr Yunxin Lin arrived in Canada from China claiming that the Public
Security Bureau (PSB) was seeking his arrest. He sought refugee protection
based on his fear of persecution by the PSB as a result of his efforts to stop
the homes in his neighbourhood from being expropriated and demolished to build
a highway. Mr Lin had argued with officials, circulated a petition, and mounted
a protest. During the protest, Mr Lin pushed an official who fell backwards and
injured his head. The official accused Mr Lin of assault and called police. Mr
Lin fled, went into hiding, and escaped to Canada.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr Lin’s refugee claim.
The Board found that the summons Mr Lin submitted to show that the PSB sought
his arrest was a fake. In addition, Mr Lin failed to provide any corroborative
evidence to support his contention that his uncle and six other persons had
been arrested, convicted and sentenced in relation to the same event. Finally,
the Board found that, even if the PSB was looking for Mr Lin, he was at risk of
prosecution for assault, not persecution for political activity. Therefore, his
claim was unconnected to any ground recognized by the Refugee Convention.
[3]
Mr
Lin argues that the Board erred by dismissing the summons and requiring him to
provide corroborative documentary evidence. In addition, Mr Lin maintains that
the Board wrongly concluded that he was not at risk of persecution. Documentary
evidence shows that opponents of the government’s expropriation activities are
often mistreated. Mr Lin asks me to conclude that the Board’s decision was
unreasonable, and to quash it.
[4]
I
can find no basis on which to overturn the Board’s decision and must, therefore,
dismiss this application for judicial review.
[5]
Mr
Lin raised three issues, but I find it necessary to deal only with one. In my
view, the Board’s conclusion that the PSB is pursuing Mr Lin, if at all, for
purposes of laying an assault charge, not for political persecution, was
reasonable. Accordingly, whether the Board erred in its findings in relation to
the summons and the documentary evidence is immaterial. Those issues go to the
question of whether the PSB is actually pursuing Mr Lin. Assuming, without
deciding, that it is, I need only address the question whether he is at risk of
persecution, or simply prosecution.
II. Was the Board’s
conclusion on persecution versus prosecution unreasonable?
[6]
Mr
Lin provided the Board with documentary evidence showing that government
officials sometimes retaliate against persons who oppose expropriation or the
amount of compensation they are offered for their property. The Board made no
reference to this evidence in its reasons. Mr Lin argues that the Board’s conclusion
that he does not face persecution was, therefore, unreasonable.
[7]
I
disagree. The evidence showed that Mr Lin had indeed vocally opposed the
government’s actions. His conduct could have been regarded as political
activity and prompted the government to retaliate in a persecutory fashion.
However, there is no evidence of that. In fact, Mr Lin had trouble getting the
government to listen to his concerns or respond to his correspondence. The PSB
got involved only in response to a complaint of assault. In addition, according
to Mr Lin’s own testimony, the others were arrested and prosecuted for
disturbing the peace and being involved in a violent confrontation, not simply
because of their opposition to the expropriation.
[8]
In
light of this evidence, the Board’s conclusion that the risk facing Mr Lin, if
any, relates to the possibility of a prosecution under a law of general
application was not unreasonable.
III. Conclusion and
Disposition
[9]
The
evidence before the Board showed that Mr Lin may face prosecution for assault,
but not persecution on political grounds. While persecution of landowners
sometimes occurs, there was no evidence to support Mr Lin’s claim that
government officials reacted to his conduct in a persecutory fashion. The
Board’s conclusion to the contrary was transparent, intelligible, and
represented a defensible outcome based on the facts and the law. I must,
therefore, 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
questions of general importance are stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content