Docket: IMM-1779-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1369
Ottawa, Ontario, November 28,
2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie
BETWEEN:
|
|
HUI WANG
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1]
This
decision arises from an application for judicial review of a January 25, 2011
decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board of Canada (the Board) that found the applicant to be neither a Convention
refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, 2001, c. 27 (IRPA).
For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.
Facts
[2]
The
applicant, Mr. Hui Wang, is 23 years old. Before the Board he claimed that a
friend introduced him to Christianity when his father’s health failed. He
testified that he then joined his friend’s underground church. The church was
apparently raided by the Public Security Bureau (PSB), but the applicant claims
he was able to escape and went into hiding. According to the applicant, the
PSB sought him out sixty to seventy times. The PSB left a summons at his home.
Using fraudulent documents obtained from a snakehead the applicant left
China and arrived
in Canada on July 21,
2008. He made a refugee claim on July 24, 2008.
Analysis
[3]
The
determinative issues as viewed by the Board were the identity of the applicant
as a citizen of China and his identity as a Christian. This Court
agrees with counsel that if the Board’s decision that the applicant failed to
establish his identity as a citizen of China and person with Christian identity
withstands judicial review, then the remainder of the Board’s analysis was
unnecessary and even if unsound, cannot affect the threshold question of
identity.
Chinese Citizenship
[4]
It
was stated by Justice Luc Martineau in Rasheed v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 587 that the “basic rule in Canadian
law is that foreign documents (whether they establish the identity or not of a
claimant) purporting to be issued by a competent foreign public office should
be accepted as evidence of their content unless the Board has some valid reason
to doubt of their authenticity.” In the present application, the Board
rejected the applicant’s identity documents.
[5]
It
rejected the applicant’s Resident Identity Card (RIC) on the basis that his
testimony as to how and when he received the card was inconsistent and vague. The
Board also rejected the RIC on the basis that the applicant did not know any of
the numbers of his RIC.
[6]
The
applicant testified that his father had mailed his RIC to him from China to Canada. His
testimony as to when he actually received the RIC was contradictory: he first
claimed that he received the card when he was eleven years old, then testified
that he received the card when he was sixteen years old. The Board found in
its decision that the applicant “…appeared to be struggling to answer questions
put to him.” The Board also found that the applicant’s testimony as to “…how
and when he obtained his RIC was inconsistent and convoluted.”
[7]
The
Board also noted the significant five month delay between the request that the
original RIC be provided and its delivery to the Board.
[8]
The
applicant testified several times as to his agreement with the proposition that
the RIC is the single most important identity document issued to an individual
in China. However,
when asked by the Tribunal Officer at his hearing what his RIC number was the
applicant was unable to provide an answer. As the Board wrote in its decision:
The claimant’s failure to know his RIC
number is very concerning. The RIC number is a number which follows a resident
of China throughout their life, a fact
which the claimant acknowledges. The claimant’s RIC number is comprised of the
provincial address code, the date of birth which represents the first 14 of 18
numbers and four remaining numbers associated to the claimant. It is
inconceivable that the claimant would not know his RIC number or that his date
of birth was embedded within the number. In this regard, the panel draws a
negative inference.
[9]
This
Court agrees that the Board’s conclusion that the applicant’s inability to
recall even the core elements of his RIC reasonably supported a serious doubt
as to his identity. This, when combined with the shifting evidence as to the
provenance of the card, the circumstances under which the first was lost and
replaced, provided a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the conclusion on
identity.
[10]
That
the applicant could not even state that his birth date, for example, was part
of his RIC number. This observation underlies an important distinction made by
the Board. The Board did not only find it inconceivable that the applicant did
not know his RIC number, rather the fact that he did not know that eight of
those numbers consisted of his birth date. To repeat, the Board stated:
It is inconceivable that the claimant
would not know his RIC number or that his date of birth was embedded within the
number. In this regard, the panel draws a negative inference.
[11]
The
applicant also contends that the Board erred in assigning the document “little
weight”. The Court need not address this except to say that it is open to an
administrative decision maker to accord a particular piece of documentary
evidence little probative value provided that reasons for doing so are
supplied; Marshall v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 622.
[12]
The
Board also rejected the RIC voucher for a second-generation card the applicant
supplied to the Board because of his perceived lack of credibility with respect
to the first RIC. It also rejected the Hukou he supplied, finding that it was linked
to the questionable RIC.
[13]
I accept counsel for the
Attorney General’s argument that, once the trier of fact comes to the
conclusion that an applicant is not credible, in most cases, it will logically
follow that the Board will not give the applicant’s documents any probative
value, unless the applicant can establish that the documents are genuine: Hamid v Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration), [1995] FCJ No 1293.
[14]
In
sum, the evidence below with respect to identity was not that the applicant did
not know all 18 digits of his RIC. I agree with the applicant that if that
were the case, the decision would be unreasonable. Here however, there was, as
noted, further evidence which informed the conclusion including the fact that
he did not know any of the numbers on his RIC, including his state address or
date of birth, the five month delay in delivery of the RIC to the Board, and
ambiguity as to its provenance.
[15]
The application for
judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that
the application for judicial review is dismissed.
No question for certification has been proposed and the Court finds that none
arises.
"Donald
J. Rennie"
Email this Content