Date: 20090730
Docket: IMM-4573-08
Citation: 2009 FC 787
Ottawa, Ontario, July 30, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
BETWEEN:
ZHANG,
LI YONG
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The Applicant came to
Canada in 2005 from the People’s Republic of China on a student visa. During a return trip to China, he alleges that he became involved in a Falun Gong
demonstration. As a result, he claims to have been beaten by the Public
Security Bureau (PSB) and that he is now being sought by the PSB. The Applicant
made application for refugee protection only after he was detained by Canadian
authorities who questioned his status as a student in Canada. He claims refugee protection on the basis of a fear of
arrest and persecution by the Chinese authorities if he returns to China.
[2]
In a decision dated
September 23, 2008, a panel of the Refugee Protection Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board (the RPD or the Board) dismissed the Applicant’s
claim. The key conclusion of the Board was that the Applicant “was not a
credible witness”. Of particular significance, the Board found that the
demonstration described by the Applicant never took place. In addition, many
other aspects of the Applicant’s testimony were found to lack credibility.
[3]
The Applicant seeks
judicial review of this decision, asserting that the Board erred by:
1.
Failing to give its
reasons in clear and unmistakable terms;
2.
Finding that the
demonstration never took place due to a lack of corroborating documentary
evidence; and
3.
Finding the “call
card” and “notice” fraudulent.
[4]
In my opinion, the
Board’s determination that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a
person in need of protection was reasonable.
[5]
It is trite
law that decisions of the RPD attract a high degree of deference since it is up
to the Board to weigh an applicant’s testimony and to assess their credibility.
It is not for the Court to reweigh the evidence or otherwise dictate the
elements to which the Board should have attributed more weight (see Kumar v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 643 at para. 3).
[6]
When
I read the decision as a whole, it is clear that the Board had a grasp of the issues
and came to a reasonable decision based on the evidence before it. Contrary to
the submissions of the Applicant, the Board gave clear reasons to support its
finding that the Applicant was not credible. It found that the Applicant’s testimony was
implausible and unreasonable as it related to his alleged participation in
Falun Gong activities in China and lack of participation in similar activities
in Canada, his alleged attendance at educational
institutions in Canada and the method by which he obtained the
documents that were tendered in support of his refugee claim. In light of the
Board’s concerns with the Applicant’s credibility, the Board acted reasonably
by searching for confirmatory evidence (see Ortiz Juarez v. Canada, 2006
FC 288 at para. 7). In this case, there was no corroborating evidence from
either the Applicant or the objective documentary evidence to support the
Applicant’s allegation that Falun Gong practitioners had been arrested in China on August 29, 2006 and that a public demonstration was held
on September 11, 2006. The Board reasonably concluded that such incidents would
have been included in the well-documented treatment of Falun Gong practitioners
in China.
[7]
Lastly, the Board did
not err by concluding that the “Call Card” and “Notice” submitted by the
Applicant were likely fraudulent. The Board had already concluded that the
Applicant was not credible with respect to the main element of his claim that
he attended and had been beaten by police at a public demonstration in China. The Board also considered the documentary evidence, which
suggested that fraudulent documents are manufactured and easily purchased in China. In my view, it properly weighed this evidence and reached
a conclusion that fell within “a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which
are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at
para. 47).
[8]
For these reasons,
the application for judicial review will be dismissed. The parties do not
propose a question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that
1.
the application for
judicial review is dismissed; and
2.
no question of
general importance is certified.
“Judith
A. Snider”
Email this Content