Date: 20080617
Docket: IMM-4036-07
Citation: 2008 FC 751
Toronto, Ontario, June 17,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Maurice E. Lagacé
BETWEEN:
WEN LI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application, pursuant to s. 72 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) of a decision of the Refugee
Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated
September 10, 2007, wherein the Board denies refugee protection to the
applicant due to a finding of a lack of credibility in his account of
persecution.
I. Facts
[2]
A
citizen of the People’s Republic of China (China), the applicant
seeks refugee protection in Canada on account of his religious beliefs. The
applicant states that as a Christian, he will be arrested and jailed should he
be forced to return to China.
[3]
The
applicant states that he began practicing Christianity in June 2003 after being
introduced to the religion by a friend and former classmate. He states that he
attended underground church services in China each week
for a period of approximately six months.
[4]
The
applicant states that the church services were held in different members’
homes, and that precautions were always taken due to the illegality of such
activities in China. He states
that services included Bible readings, discussion and silent prayer, and that
on one occasion, in November 2003; a pastor attended and conducted the service.
[5]
The
applicant continued to attend weekly services until December 2003 when he came
to Canada on a student
visa. The applicant states that since arriving in Canada he has
continued to practice Christianity, attending church services and Bible study.
[6]
The
applicant states that his problems began on April 2, 2006, when he received a
telephone call from his mother that officers from the Public Security Bureau
(PSB) had come to his parents’ home and accused the applicant of being a member
of the underground church. He was also accused of spreading Christian thoughts
back to China. The
applicant states that the PSB officers interrogated his parents regarding his
religious activities and told his mother that they had arrested two members of
the applicant’s underground church. She was also told to advise the applicant
to return to China.
[7]
The
applicant states that the PSB continues to inquire as to his whereabouts. He
states that after learning of this information, he knew he could not return to China.
Accordingly, on April 10, 2006, the applicant filed a claim for refugee
protection in Canada, which was
heard by the Board on July 30, 2007.
II. The Impugned Decision
[8]
On
September 10, 2007, the Board concludes that the applicant is neither a
Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. Central to the Board’s
finding is the applicant’s credibility, about which the Board notes a number of
implausible and inconsistent statements made to justify its negative
credibility findings with regard to portions of the applicant’s testimony,
before concluding that the applicant was not a “credible and trustworthy
witness” and was not a “Christian practitioner in China and is not being sought
by the PSB”.
III. Issues
[9]
The
applicant raises three issues for consideration:
a. Did the Board
err in its analysis of the applicant’s evidence concerning the form and order
of events at the underground church services?
b. Did the Board
err in concluding that the applicant’s evidence concerning his education in Canada further
supported its finding that he was not a Christian practitioner in China and is not
being sought by the PSB? and;
c. Did the Board
err in failing to determine whether the applicant was, in fact, a Christian?
IV. Standard of Review
[10]
It
is well established that the Board’s credibility findings are entitled to the
highest level of curial deference when being reviewed by this Court: see Chen
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1194, [2002]
F.C.J. No. 1611 (QL) and Gonzalez v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 128, [2008] F.C.J. No. 161 (QL).
[11]
The
standard of
review applicable to a finding of credibility or fact on the part of a Board is
one of reasonableness. This is a deferential standard which recognizes that certain
questions before administrative tribunals do not lend themselves to one
specific, particular result but instead give rise to a number of possible and
reasonable conclusions (Dunsmuir
v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] S.C.J. No. 9, at paragraph 47). Where the decision at issue
falls within that spectrum, the Court should not interfere.
[12]
On
a question of law
however, the review should conform to a correctness standard.
V. Analysis
A. Did the Board err in its analysis of
the applicant’s evidence?
[13]
Board
is entitled to decide adversely with respect a claimant’s credibility on the
basis of contradictions and inconsistencies in the claimant’s story and between
the claimant’s story and other evidence before the Board. Also the Board is
entitled to make an adverse finding regarding credibility on the basis of the
implausibility of the claimant’s testimony alone. (Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) [1990] 3 F.C. 238, 112 N.R. 61; (Leung v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration). (1990), 74 D.L.R. (4th) 313,
120 N.R. 391 (F.C.A.); (Alizadeh v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) [1993] F.C.J. No 11 (F.C.A)).
[14]
A
review of the reasons reveals that the Board provides an explanation as to why
it finds the applicant’s testimony implausible in certain areas it judges
fundamental. None of these findings is, “so unreasonable as to
warrant…intervention”, to quote Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.).
[15]
The
applicant has failed to demonstrate to this Court that the inferences drawn by
the Board were not reasonably open to it on the record and that it erred in its
analysis of the applicant’s evidence.
B. Did
the Board err in concluding that the applicant’s evidence concerning his
education in Canada further supported its finding
that he was not a Christian practitioner in China and is not being sought by the PSB?
[16]
In
its decision, the Board held that the applicant was not credible in his claim
that he was furthering his education in Canada, and that such a finding supported
its conclusion that he was not credible with respect to being a Christian
practitioner in China who was being sought by the PSB. As the Board
stated at page 3 of its decision:
To further buttress the panel’s finding
that the claimant is not a credible and trustworthy witness and was not a
Christian practitioner in China and is not being sought by
the PSB, the panel finds that the claimant was not credible in his claim that
he was furthering his education in Canada.
His initial approval for a student visa stated that he attend Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. He said that it was his
intent to study electronic commerce. He entered English as a Second Language
course but he did not complete the course. He subsequently came to Toronto, Ontario and attended the Toronto
Institute of Technology. It was pointed out to him that this was not a
recognized university. There are only three recognized universities in the City
of Toronto. He said that he got his
information on schools in Toronto, Ontario from a friend. It is
implausible that a person with his intelligence and his educational background
would rely on information from a friend and he would not research the matter
for himself. The panel finds that the claimant is not credible in this matter or
in his Christian experience in China.
[17]
While
the applicant’s education in Canada provides support for the Board’s finding
that the applicant lacks credibility generally, it has no
relevance in regard to a finding that he was not credible as a “Christian
practitioner”. But still this finding was open to the Board, and constitutes
another element supporting its overall credibility finding on the applicant’s
story. This Court sees no valid reason for an intervention on this issue.
C. Did the Board err in failing to
determine whether the applicant was, in fact, a Christian?
[18]
Finally,
the applicant argues the Board erred in failing to adequately assess his
identity as a Christian. The applicant states that his identity as a Christian
is central to his claim, and therefore requires a clear, unambiguous
determination.
[19]
At
page 1 of its decision, the Board states:
The panel finds that, on a balance of
probabilities, the claimant is not a credible and trustworthy witness and was
not a Christian practitioner in China
and is not being sought by the PSB.
[20]
While
the Board accepts the applicant’s identity as a Chinese national, the foregoing
passage clearly demonstrates that it did not believe that he was a Christian.
The Board had the advantage to hear the applicant, and therefore on top of all
the inconsistencies noted in the applicant’s testimony, the Board remained in a
better position than anybody else to appreciate and judge the applicant’s
credibility. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Board properly determined
whether it accepted the applicant’s identity as a Christian.
VI. Conclusion
[21]
In
brief and after
considering all the circumstances in issue, this is a case where the decision
falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in
respect of the facts and law. The result may not be what the applicant
expected, and this is obviously for that reasons that the applicant points out
to evidence favouring a different result. But this Court, having already
concluded that the decision is reasonable on all the issues, will resist this
type of invitation, that is to analyse the evidence differently than the Board
did in order to substitute its own conclusion to the Board’s conclusion. This
is not the role of this Court.
[22]
Consequently
the Court will
dismiss the application.
[23]
No
question of
general importance was put forward for certification, and none will be
certified.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE
FOREGOING REASONS THIS COURT dismisses the
application.
“Maurice E. Lagacé”
Email this Content