Date: 20080314
Docket: IMM-2459-07
Citation: 2008 FC 346
Ottawa, Ontario, March 14, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
SI
HUI HUANG
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr. Huang is a 27 year old Chinese
citizen who claims to fear persecution by the Chinese authorities due to his
membership in an underground Christian church which was raided on June 25,
2006, while he was not present. This application is for judicial review of the
decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated May 29, 2007, that he
was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
[2]
The applicant is from a rural area
and has a grade seven education. He worked in the rice fields or on fishing
boats. On July 8, 2005, the fishing boat Mr. Huang and his uncle were on was
hit by a larger vessel, which accident sent Mr. Huang to hospital and killed
his uncle. He states that he became depressed and, after some time, joined an underground
church at the instigation of a friend. He describes a small church whose
members treated him as family and helped him to overcome his depression.
[3]
On June 25, 2006, after
three and a half months’ membership in the church, Mr. Huang claims it was
raided by the Chinese authorities and six members of the congregation were
arrested. Mr. Huang had not been present at the service, as he was caring for
his ill mother. He was alerted by the friend who had initially introduced him
to the church, and who had managed to escape the raid.
[4]
Mr. Huang fled to a
friend’s house, and learned from his mother that the authorities had searched
his family’s home on June 26th, ordering him to report by June 30th.
On July 1st, they returned to look for him again, as he had remained
in hiding. The friend with whom he had been staying helped him to find a “snakehead”
or human trafficker and he fled to Canada, arriving July
14, 2006.
[5]
After
a hearing on May 14, 2007 with the aid of an interpreter, the Panel found that Mr. Huang was not credible as a
member of an underground Christian church as he had insufficient knowledge of
Christianity, citing several specific instances of failure to know the details
of Christian tenets.
[6]
While the applicant
raised several issues, it is my view that the main issue raised in this
application is whether the RPD was unreasonable in finding that the applicant
was not credible in claiming to be a Christian.
[7]
This
hearing was conducted prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir
v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] S.C.J. 9 which modified the standards on which judicial
reviews are to be conducted. The review of an RPD finding of credibility prior
to that decision was to be assessed on a patent unreasonableness standard. Dunsmuir
eliminates the distinction between reasonableness simpliciter and patent
unreasonableness. I will, therefore, assess whether the decision of the RPD was
unreasonable. I note that, in the instant case, the change in standards of
review does not alter the outcome I would have reached prior to Dunsmuir.
[8]
The applicant submits that the
Board’s finding was based on unattainable and unreasonable requirements for knowledge
of the Christian faith. The applicant had, at the time of the hearing, been
exposed to Christianity for just over a year. He showed a reasonable level of
knowledge of the faith in those circumstances. The applicant also asserts that
his level of knowledge of Christianity should not be a determinative factor in
an assessment of whether he is indeed a Christian.
[9]
The respondent contends
that the applicant bore the burden of
proving his claim, based on his alleged religious beliefs. He was unable to
show that he possessed a reasonable familiarity with the services of the
underground church or even a basic grasp of Christianity. The Board member supported
her findings with ample reasons and her decision should not be vacated.
[10]
Mr.
Huang is a young man with little education, who was raised in a country where the Christian faith is not part of the
social fabric.
From the transcript of the hearing, it is clear that his few points of error on doctrinal issues are vastly
outweighed by his knowledge of the Christian faith. The RPD appears to have
been overly focused on those few points of error or misunderstandings to a
level which reached the microscopic analysis criticized in Attakora
v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) (F.C.A.), (1989), 99 N.R. 168, [1989]
F.C.J. No. 444, and subsequent cases.
[11]
The Board member’s standard for
knowledge of Christian doctrine was unrealistically high, and she was clearly
weighing his description of a standard service at the underground church
against her own idea of how a service unfolds. I cannot find her decision
reasonable, given the personal circumstances of the applicant and his evidence.
[12]
For these reasons, the decision of the RPD is vacated and Mr. Huang’s case
is to be assessed by a differently constituted Panel. Neither party proposed a
question for certification.
JUDGMENT
IT IS THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT that this
application is allowed. No questions are certified.
“
Richard G. Mosley ”
Email this Content