Shen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 442

Date: 20070501

Docket: IMM-2777-06

Citation: 2007 FC 442

BETWEEN:

JIE ZHEN SHEN,

ZHENG DONG CAO and

ZHEN DONG CAO

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Pinard J.

[1]               This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated April 28, 2006, wherein the Board determined that the applicants were not “Convention refugees” or “persons in need of protection” as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act).

[2]               Jie Zhen Shen, the principal applicant, and her two sons Zheng Dong Cao and Zhen Dong Cao are citizens of the People’s Republic of China. Zheng Dong Cao and Zhen Dong Cao’s claims are based on their mother’s claim.

[3]               The Board found that, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant is not credible and is not being sought by the authorities in China.

[4]               In assessing the credibility of the applicant, the Board noted that it was guided by the following principles established by the Federal Court of Appeal:

a)      When an applicant swears to the truth of certain allegations there is a presumption that the allegations are true (Maldonado v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.)).

b)      The existence of contradictions in the evidence is a valid basis for a finding of lack of credibility (Canada (M.E.I.) v. Dan-Ash (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (F.C.A.)).

c)      A general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the applicant may conceivably extend to all relevant information emanating from his testimony (Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.)).

d)      The Board is entitled in assessing credibility to rely on criterion such as rationality and common sense (Shahamati v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 415 (QL) (C.A.)).

[5]               The Board found that there were a number of plausibility concerns with respect to the applicant’s testimony, as well as some omissions and inconsistencies.

[6]               It is well established that the Court will only intervene in the credibility findings of the Board where the findings were made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7), which is not the case here.

[7]               Indeed, upon reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied that the inferences drawn by the Board, which is a specialized tribunal, are not so unreasonable as to warrant the intervention of the Court (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). Given all the implausibilities, omissions and inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony, the general finding of a lack of credibility made by the Board could extend to all relevant evidence emanating from the applicant’s testimony (see Sheikh, supra).

[8]               Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

“Yvon Pinard”

Ottawa, Ontario

May 1, 2007

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-2777-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          JIE ZHEN SHEN, ZHENG DONG CAO and ZHEN DONG CAO v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                      March 20, 2007

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:       Pinard J.

DATED:                                             May 1, 2007

APPEARANCES:

John Savaglio                                                   FOR THE APPLICANTS

Aviva Basman                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

John Savaglio                                                   FOR THE APPLICANTS

Barrister & Solicitor

Pickering, Ontario

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                          FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada