Date: 20080204
Docket: IMM-1425-07
Citation: 2008 FC 132
Ottawa, Ontario, February 4,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
HUANG,
GUOBAO
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr. Guobao Huang says that, as a devout Christian, he fears
religious persecution in the People’s Republic of China. He claimed refugee
protection in Canada, but a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
dismissed his claim for a lack of credible evidence. Mr. Huang argues that the
Board failed to conduct a complete analysis of his claim and asks me to order a
new hearing before a different panel. I agree that the Board’s analysis was
incomplete and will, therefore, grant this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[2]
Did the Board fail to address the essence of Mr. Huang’s claim?
II. Analysis
1. Factual
Background
[3]
Mr. Huang explained to the Board that he joined an underground
Christian church in China in 2005. He attended services on a regular basis.
During a service in August 2005, a look-out alerted the congregation that the
Public Security Bureau (PSB) was approaching the house where it was
worshipping. Mr. Huang managed to escape and hid at a relative’s home. His
brother told him that the PSB had come looking for him at home. Later, he
learned that the PSB had arrested two of his fellow parishioners. He decided to
leave China.
2. The
Board’s Decision
[4]
The Board did not believe that Mr. Huang had been a member of an
underground church. The Board asked Mr. Huang to describe “in detail” the
underground services he had attended. Mr. Huang, testifying through a
translator, was rather short on words. He said, simply, “send out look-out,
read Bible, have a discussion, sing, say prayers silently”. When asked if there
was anything else, he just said “Basically, that’s it”.
[5]
The Board also asked Mr. Huang what a “Benediction” was. He seemed
unsure. He used the word “Zoufou” to describe the prayer that is given at the
end of the service, but when the Board asked him again about a “Benediction” he
did not know what to say.
[6]
The Board concluded that Mr. Huang had not really been a member of an
underground church. His familiarity with Christianity could have come from
attending church in Canada and acquired in order to bolster his refugee claim.
In addition, the Board found it implausible that, if the PSB had really been
after him, Mr. Huang would have been freely allowed to exit China using his own
passport. Mr. Huang testified that he had paid an agent to bribe customs
officials, but the Board doubted that he could have bribed all of the officers
who could have potentially screened him at the border.
3. Discussion
and Conclusion
[7]
Mr. Huang argues that the Board’s conclusion that he was not a member of
an underground church in China was not warranted on the evidence before it.
Further, he submits that the Board failed to answer the real question before
it; that is, whether he had shown more than a mere possibility that he would be
subjected to religious persecution if sent back to China.
[8]
In my view, even if the Board’s finding that Mr. Huang had not been a
member of an underground church was supported by the evidence, that finding did
not justify a conclusion that Mr. Huang was not entitled to refugee protection.
While the Board speculated that Mr. Huang’s general knowledge of Christianity might
have been acquired in Canada in order to substantiate his refugee claim, it did
not make a definitive finding that Mr. Huang was not a genuine Christian. In my
view, therefore, the Board failed to consider whether Mr. Huang might encounter
religious persecution if sent back to China, whether or not he had previously
been a member of an underground church. (See Chen v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 480, [2002] F.C.J. No.
647 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)).
[9]
Therefore, I must allow this application for judicial review and order a
new hearing. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to
certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is
that
1.
The
application for judicial review is allowed and a new trial is ordered.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content