Docket: IMM-1120-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1199
Ottawa, Ontario, October 20,
2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Near
BETWEEN:
|
|
LING LING HE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated January 31,
2011. The Board determined that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or
person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA).
[2]
For
the following reasons, the application is dismissed.
I. Facts
[3]
The
Applicant, Ling Ling He, is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In
September 2009, she came to Canada and made a claim for refugee protection.
She fears persecution in China based on her Roman Catholic faith.
[4]
The
Applicant resided in Fu Qing, Fujian province.
Her grandmother introduced her to Catholicism in October 2007. She would
initially read the rosary and pray at home. A month later, she began attending
an underground church. She was baptized and confirmed in March 2008.
[5]
The
Applicant’s church group was involved in hanging religious pamphlets in public
places. On August 2, 2008, the Applicant acted as a lookout for members of the
group placing leaflets in a park. She claimed that two members of her group
were arrested and that the Public Security Bureau (PSB) came to look for
her.
II. Decision
[6]
The
Board determined that the Applicant was a genuine Roman Catholic practitioner
but she could return to Fujian province and continue to practice her
religion.
[7]
There
was a credibility issue as to whether the authorities truly expressed interest
in the Applicant. Given the alleged arrest of other group members and
inquiries made by the PSB about the Applicant, it was reasonable to expect that
an arrest warrant or summons would have been left with her family. There was
no evidence that this was the case.
[8]
In
addition, the Board reviewed documentary evidence of the situation facing
Catholics in the Fujian province and the relationship of the Chinese
Government and the Holy See. It found that the Catholic Church was strong in Fujian province.
Unregistered churches had numerous members and were well-organized, enabling
the Applicant to return and freely participate in her religion. The Board
acknowledged evidence of sporadic persecution of the church leadership, such as
bishops and priests. This was, however, different from the situation of the
Applicant who was only a member of the Church. As a consequence, the Applicant
was found not to have satisfied the burden of establishing a serious
possibility that she would be persecuted or face a risk to life or of cruel and
unusual punishment if returned to the PRC.
III. Issue
[9]
The
Applicant raises the following issue:
(a) Was
the Board’s assessment related to the objective basis of the Applicant’s claim
reasonable?
IV. Standard
of Review
[10]
The
assessment of risk faced by the Applicant is a question of mixed fact and law
reviewable on a standard of reasonableness (see for example Yang v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 811, 2011 CarswellNat 2540 at
paras 21-26).
[11]
As
articulated in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at
para 47, reasonableness is “concerned mostly with the existence of
justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making
process” as well as “whether the decision falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”
V. Analysis
[12]
It
appears that the Applicant has only provided a single submission based on the
decision of Justice Michel Shore in Liang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2011 FC 65, 2011 CarswellNat 129. In that case, it was
found that the Board should not have relied on the size of the applicant’s
church group, given evidence that churches were raided regardless of their
size, to conclude there were insufficient grounds to establish a fear of
persecution should an individual return to the PRC and practice in an
underground church.
[13]
The
Applicant asserts that the decision of the Board in Liang, above, is
almost identical to her case and is similarly unreasonable. In both cases, the
Board accepted that the individuals were genuine Catholics from Fujian province.
She notes that the Court made statements regarding the challenges associated
with practicing the religion in that region. There is also recent documentary
evidence of the risk faced by underground churches. According to the
Applicant, this implies more than a mere possibility that she would be
persecuted on religious grounds. She was not able to freely practice her
faith.
[14]
The
Respondent contends that the Applicant’s reliance on Liang, above, is
misplaced. Subsequent jurisprudence considering Liang has stressed that
each case depends on its own facts and how they are assessed by the Board (see
for example Li v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2011 FC 941, 2011 CarswellNat 2977 at para 47; Yang,
above). It cannot be taken as a broad precedent for all Chinese applicants
claiming persecution on religious grounds when the issue was whether sufficient
weight was given to specific information on underground churches.
[15]
I
agree with the Respondent. The Applicant’s circumstances were not identical to
those in Liang, above. She does not claim that her church was destroyed
by the PSB but suggests that two members of her group may have been arrested
for hanging leaflets in public. There is no indication that the size of the
Applicant’s church was relevant to the Board’s determination as was the
critical finding in Liang.
[16]
The
Board was reasonable in its assessment of the Applicant’s case. The Board
considered documentary evidence from a range of sources and recognized mixed
evidence regarding Catholics in Fujian province. The Board
acknowledged that church leaders had been targeted by the authorities in the
past but this was of less significance to the Applicant as simply a member of
an underground church. It was also open to the Board to place greater emphasis
on documentary evidence, given concerns regarding the credibility of the
Applicant’s uncorroborated evidence of the arrest of members of her church
group (see Yu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010
FC 310, 2010 CarswellNat 632 at paras 24-38).
[17]
It
must always be borne in mind that “every case is different and composed of a
unique documentary record” and “[o]ne should be cautious in applying country
findings from one decision of this Court to another” (Yu, above, para
22).
[18]
Despite
the Applicant’s claims, the Board looked at the documentary evidence and
assessed the particular risks she faced. This Court cannot reach the
conclusion that the assessment of the objective basis of the claim was
unreasonable based on the finding in Liang, above.
VI. Conclusion
[19]
The
Board reasonably concluded that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or
person in need of protection. She could return to Fujian province in
the PRC and continue to practice her Roman Catholic faith.
[20]
Accordingly,
this application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that
this application for judicial review is dismissed.
“ D.
G. Near ”
Email this Content