Docket: IMM-461-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1030
Ottawa, Ontario, September 2,
2011
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
|
|
MAO QIN WANG
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review under s 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 26 (IRPA) of a negative decision
rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada (the Board) dated January 5, 2011.
[2]
This
application for judicial review shall be allowed for the reasons below.
[3]
The
applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (China). He fears that
if returned he will be arrested, jailed, maltreated and will be unable to
practice his Roman Catholic faith freely.
[4]
The
Board had several concerns regarding his credibility; especially,
it found that the applicant was never a genuine practicing Roman
Catholic. The applicant’s level of knowledge of the Catholic faith did not commensurate
with someone who had been a Roman Catholic for three years. For example, the
Board made note of the following (Board’s decision, paras 19-28, for a complete
list):
a. The applicant
displayed little knowledge of mass;
b. He was
asked about the reading of the Gospel by the priest. The applicant testified
that the previous Sunday’s reading was from Exodus. The Board noted that this
was incorrect, as the Gospel is always from the New Testament;
c. He displayed
little knowledge of the Old Testament;
d. He had
little knowledge of the Bible’s characters, such as Mary, Elizabeth and Mary
Magdalene;
e. He did not
know the story of the Good Samaritan;
[5]
At
the resumption of the hearing, the applicant correctly answered questions
pertaining to the rosary and to the seven sacraments. The Board gave little
weight to the answers, as it concluded that the applicant could have been
anticipating the questions.
[6]
The
applicant produced a letter from The Toronto Chinese Centre – Our Lady of Mount
Carmel Church indicating that he had been attending church regularly
since September of 2008 and produced a Baptismal and a Confirmation Certificate
from the same church. The Board gave these documents little evidentiary weight given
the applicant’s lack of credibility and lack of knowledge of the Roman Catholic
faith and practice.
[7]
In
similar cases the standard of review applicable to findings of fact,
including credibility, is reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New
Brunswick, [2009] SCJ 9; Khosa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 RCS 339). The
applicant adds that findings of fact based on speculative reasoning are
entitled to less deference, on the basis that a reviewing court is often in an
equal position as the Board to assess the reasonableness of such findings (Yada
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] FCJ 37, para 25;
Giron v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] FCJ 481,
para 1).
[8]
The
respondent agrees that the standard of review is reasonableness. He states
that where the Board’s decision is based on an assessment or weighing of the
facts before it, its decision is reviewable only where it is based on an
erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without
regard to the material before it.
[9]
Therefore,
the Court shall intervene only if the Board’s decision is found to be outside
of the range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of
the facts and the law (Dunsmuir, para 47).
[10] Although the applicant
proposes numerous issues to be decided, the Court is of the opinion that the
Board's negative finding of the applicant's knowledge of the Roman Catholic
faith is central to the applicant's dismissal of his claim.
[11] In Dong v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship & Immigration), [2010] ACF 54, at para 20, the
Court stated:
In assessing a claimant’s knowledge of
Christianity, the Board should not adopt an unrealistically high standard of
knowledge or focus on a ‘few points of error or misunderstandings to a level
which reached the microscopic analysis.
[12] In that case, the Board
drew a negative inference in relation to the applicant’s identity as a
practicing Christian because of his inability to easily describe the core
elements of the Christian faith. The Court held that the Board’s determination
that the applicant was unable to demonstrate a reasonable level of Christian
knowledge, and therefore was not credible, was unreasonable.
[13] In the
present case, the Court finds that the Board erred in determining that the
applicant was not a genuine Roman Catholic by holding him to an unreasonably
high standard of religious knowledge. For example, the applicant was
asked if the wafer distributed during Holy Communion represented the body of
Jesus or if it was the body of Jesus. The applicant answered that it represented
the body of Jesus (transcript, Certified Tribunal Record, page 469, line 25).
The Board found this answer to be incorrect. The Board erroneously determined
the applicant’s knowledge of the Catholic faith by way of “trivia”. In
assessing the applicant’s knowledge of Christianity, the Board “erroneously
expected the answers of the applicant to questions about his religion to be
equivalent to the Board’s own knowledge of that religion” Ullah v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] FCJ 1918, para 11.
[14] The
applicant was asked several detailed questions about the Christian religion
which he answered correctly, for example, the procedure of the Holy
Communion (Certified Tribunal Record, page 468, line 45).
[15] The parties did not
propose questions for certification and none arise.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS that:
1.
The
application for judicial review be allowed.
2.
The
matter is remitted back for redetermination by a different Board.
3.
No
question is certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
Email this Content