Date: 20090303
Docket: IMM-3593-08
Citation: 2009
FC 219
Ottawa, Ontario,
March
3, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington
BETWEEN:
CHAN CHEN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Ms. Chen says
she is afraid to return to China for several reasons. Her parents want her
to marry the abusive son of the Chief of the Public Security Bureau in Changle City. She
fled once to Fuzhou
City but
fortunately left her friend’s house before her betrothed and a local PSB
officer arrived looking for her. Furthermore she is an unwed mother and has
given birth to a child in Canada. Were she to return she is afraid she
would be sterilized, as part of China’s one-child policy.
[2]
This
is the judicial review of a negative decision of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Board. The Board found her subjective fears to be unduly
speculative, and also found on the balance of probabilities that both state
protection and an internal flight alternative were available to her. The Board
doubted, despite her protestations, that her suitor would still be interested
in her. Although some police have a poor reputation, the same does not really
extend into domestic violence issues.
[3]
The
Board doubted the hearsay evidence recounted to Ms. Chen by her friend that her
suitor and a local police officer came looking for her. Indeed the father’s
precise role in the police and the actual work district are in doubt. It was
highly unlikely that an underling police officer could engage all the police in
China to capture
Ms. Chen so that she would be forced to marry his son. Moreover, that scenario
is inconsistent with the fact that she left China on her own
passport. Had the police been on the lookout she would have been stopped.
[4]
With
respect to sterilization, country documentation was somewhat vague as to what
the situation actually is. Although it is apparently illegal for a single woman
to give birth in China, the situation is unclear with respect to a child born
to a single mother or to a couple outside China. Based on
the country documentation, it was certainly open for the officer to consider
that the worst result was that a social security fine would be imposed upon
her.
[5]
With
respect to the internal flight alternative, Ms. Chen offered two reasons why
that avenue was not available to her. One was that the police had already
tracked her down, a point on which credibility was lacking, and the other was
that she had never worked anywhere and could not survive without the support of
her parents. She was 25 years of age at the time of the hearing and educated
(she has studied in Canada for some years). Again the Board was not
satisfied.
[6]
The
Board’s analysis of country documentation and findings on the facts before it
were well within the range of reasonable possibilities and so the decision is
not to be disturbed (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9).
ORDER
THIS COURT
ORDERS that:
1. The
application is dismissed.
2. There is no
serious question of general importance to certify.
“Sean Harrington”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3593-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: Chan
Chen v. MCI
PLACE OF
HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING: February 26, 2009
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: HARRINGTON J.
DATED: March
3, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
Leonard H.
Borenstein
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
David Joseph
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Leonard H.
Borenstein
Barrister
& Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|