Date: 20080819
Docket: IMM-2319-07
Citation: 2008 FC 956
BETWEEN:
HANY
ZENG (a.k.a. HAN LIN HANY ZENG)
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’KEEFE J.
[1]
This
is an application pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) for judicial review of a
decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board (the Board) dated May 16, 2007, wherein the Board found the applicant was
excluded from refugee protection by reason of Article 1F(b) of the United
Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951,
[1969] Can. T.S. No. 6 (the Convention).
[2]
The
applicant requested that the decision be set aside and the matter referred back
to a newly constituted panel of the Board for redetermination.
Background
[3]
Hany
Zeng (the applicant), also known as Han Lin Hany Zeng, made a claim for refugee
protection in Canada. During the
determination of his refugee claim, the Minister intervened seeking a
determination that the applicant was a person to be excluded by reason of
Article 1F(b) of the Convention. The parties have agreed to the facts as per
the reasons of the Board.
[4]
The
applicant obtained citizenship from the Commonwealth of Dominica in May 1994,
but has continued to regard himself as a citizen of the People’s Republic of
China (China). The
applicant alleges he sought a Dominica passport to facilitate
his international travels.
[5]
In
1993, the applicant started a very profitable shipping company called the
Flying Dragon High-Speed Shipping Company (HSS). By 1997, HSS was worth about
100 million RMB (about $12,994,146 USD). In 1997, the applicant established a
comprehensive holding company, Guangdong Flying Dragon Group Company Limited
(FDG). Both HSS and FDG were based in Guangdong Province.
[6]
In
August 1997, FDG was targeted by Chengdu Lianyi Group Company (CLG). This
company was based in Sichuan Province, and headed by Haizhong
Xu. By September, the applicant and Mr. Xu reached a share transfer agreement
whereby FDG bought 40% of the share in Lianyi Industries (LI), a subsidiary of
CLG, for 68 million RMB (the first share transfer agreement). Under the first
share transfer agreement, payment was made through a payment schedule and
disputes were to be handled by way of arbitration.
[7]
In
October 1997, the applicant and Mr. Xu reached a second agreement (the second
share transfer agreement). This agreement provided for LI to buy 75% of HSS in
accordance with another payment schedule. The total cost to LI was 74 million
RMB. In early December, the applicant became Chairperson of the LI Board of
Directors, and Mr. Xu became Vice-Chairman. The agreement was not formalized
until December 25, 1997.
[8]
Mr.
Xu then began to pressure the applicant to allocate resources from LI to the
local Sichuan steel
industry and to make LI’s company decisions subject to approval by CLG and the Sichuan provincial
government. The two men were at odds and conflicts escalated as Mr. Xu wanted
to invest in his home province of Sichuan, whereas the applicant
wanted to invest further in Guangdong Province. In September
1998, the applicant alleged that he was forced under the threat of violence to
sign an amendment to the first share transfer agreement. The amendment called
for the applicant to pay 10 million RMB by December 1998 or to forfeit his
share in LI to CLG. The applicant did not report the incident to the police
because of Mr. Xu’s alleged close connections with the Sichuan government
officials and provincial police.
[9]
The
conflict and tension between the two men went unresolved. In July 1999 while in
Sichuan
Province on business,
the applicant alleged that he was taken to a motel. He alleged that Mr. Xu,
government officials, and thugs were there and that he was detained, tortured
and threatened for several days until he signed another agreement under duress
(the third share transfer agreement). This agreement provided that FDG would
sell its 40% interest in LI to Sanjiu Enterprises Group (SEG), but that the
payment would instead go to CLG. The agreement provided no benefit for the
applicant. As a result of this incident, the applicant went into hiding in
August 1999.
[10]
Officials
at SEG questioned the validity of the third share transfer agreement and became
concerned about the management of LI. As a result, they cancelled the third
share transfer agreement. Mr. Xu and his friends persisted and alleged to the Chengdu police that
FDG had defrauded them of their stock rights in LI. An investigation was initiated
to determine if the applicant and FDG had committed financial fraud.
[11]
In
September 1999, Mr. Xu sent thugs to Guangdong Province to intimidate
HSS employees. The thugs also threatened the applicant’s wife. As a result of
the threats, HSS ceased operating.
[12]
On
October 21, 1999, the applicant returned to Guangdong Province from
Hong
Kong
in order to consult with his lawyer about possible fraud charges. The applicant
feared not receiving a fair trial and the possibility of the death penalty. As
a result, the applicant returned to Hong Kong on October 30, 1999. Upon
learning from the media that he was wanted by police, the applicant and his
wife fled to Canada that same
day using their Dominican passports. They arrived in Canada on November
4, 1999.
[13]
Back
in China, Chaohui
Zhang (Mr. Zhang), the Vice-General Manager of FDG was arrested, tried and
found guilty of fraud. He was sentenced to thirteen years in jail and fined
200,000 RMB. The sentence was reduced to ten years by an appeal court.
[14]
Upon
his arrival in Canada, the applicant was uncertain of his next step.
He feared being sent back to China by Canadian authorities. He did not return
to Dominica for similar
reasons. It appears that the applicant originally entered Canada on a
visitor’s visa and did not claim refugee status. As his visitor’s visa was
close to expiration, the applicant travelled to the United Kingdom on March 19,
2000 where he obtained visitor’s status until September 26, 2000. He returned
to Canada on March 27,
2000 and applied for an extension of his visitor’s status. An interview was
ordered, but the applicant failed to attend as he feared being returned to China. On January
12, 2004, after having been arrested by Canadian authorities for overstaying
his authorized stay, he filed a refugee claim against both China and the Dominica.
[15]
On
June 24, 2005, the Minister issued a “Notice of Intent to Participate” as it
had come to the Minister’s knowledge through Interpol that the applicant was
wanted in China for two
crimes of contract fraud amounting to 8.5 million USD and 4.3 million USD.
[16]
In
its decision dated May 16, 2007, the Board found that the applicant was
excluded from refugee protection by reason of Article 1F(b) of the Convention.
Board’s
Decision
[17]
The
Board began its analysis by accepting on a balance of probabilities that the
applicant was who he claimed to be and that he was a national of both the
Commonwealth of Dominica and the People’s Republic of China.
Legislative
Scheme
[18]
The
Board made a few initial comments on the legislative scheme, its
interpretation, and the appropriate standard of proof. The Board considered the
legislative scheme and noted that the Federal Court of Appeal in Ramirez v.
Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration), [1992] 2 F.C. 306 (C.A.) made it clear
that exclusion clauses were not to be construed narrowly. Moreover, the Federal
Court of Appeal also determined that there is no requirement to balance the
inclusion and exclusion components of the definition of Convention refugee.
Regarding the standard of proof, the Board noted that the Federal Court of
Appeal found that “serious reasons for considering” (a Convention phrase) applies
to questions of fact rather than law and is a lesser standard of proof than
that of a balance of probabilities, but somewhat more than a suspicion or
conjecture. The Board further noted that to meet this standard, there need not
be evidence that the applicant has been charged, convicted or criminally
prosecuted. The Board stated that the onus to establish that exclusion was on
the Minister.
Economic
Fraud
[19]
The
Board noted the first Interpol warrant wherein the applicant was wanted for
arrest in China for defrauding
CLG by 40% of his shares as the respresentative of FDG. The warrant alleged
that the applicant’s act violated Article 224 of the China Criminal Law, which
is similar to section 380(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code. The Board
noted that under both Chinese and Canadian law, the offence required mens
rea. The Board also discussed a subsequent communication from Interpol
which provided details as to the specific acts alleged to have been committed
by the applicant.
[20]
The
Board noted that the applicant was inconsistent in his testimony regarding the
failure to make the scheduled payments as per the share transfer agreement.
While the applicant first noted that payment was not necessary because the two
had been “buddies” since December 1996, the applicant changed his story when
confronted with documentation that the two had met in August 1997. With regards
to the applicant’s testimony on how he proposed to eventually make the payment,
the Board noted that it was “lacking the clarity or even consistency one would
expect from someone who has been falsely accused as he alleges.”
[21]
The
Board also noted that the applicant’s testimony regarding a false deposit
certificate in the amount of 3.1869 million USD made to LI was inherently
implausible. When initially questioned about the false deposit certificate, the
applicant testified that he never asked anyone to make the deposit. However,
the applicant acknowledged this to be factual when the applicant was confronted
by the false deposit certificate signed by Mr. Zhang on record, and a
resolution authorizing Mr. Zhang to sign all relevant documents related to the
sale from the HSS Board of Directors (of which the applicant was the chairman).
In conclusion, the Board found that with regards to the above transaction with
LI, there was “serious reason to believe the claimant was complicit in
fraudulent criminal activities related to defrauding LI”.
[22]
The
Board also reviewed the evidence regarding the existence of a mortgage for
about 58 million RMB against HSS in January 1997. The applicant at first denied
the existence of the mortgage, but after further questioning he responded only
that “it should be in the financial statement about the bank”. The Board stated
that “while this does not acknowledge the existence of the mortgage, it is
hardly a ringing denial of the existence of the mortgage.” The Board also noted
that when later asked to confirm that the purchasers of HSS had no knowledge of
the mortgage, the applicant replied that he needed to do a thorough check of
the documents. The Board stated “this response also allows for the existence of
a mortgage.” The Board went on to state that as the hearing progressed and the
significance of the mortgage became clearer, the applicant emphatically denied
its very existence.
Applicant’s
Fear
[23]
The
Board then proceeded to analyze the applicant’s fears that if returned to China he would be
unable to get justice because he is being persecuted. The Board considered
testimony from Professor Vincent Cheng Yang, an expert witness who provided
sworn written and oral testimony on the workings of the Chinese criminal
justice system. The Board noted that Professor Yang’s “comments were of
immediate relevance to the case”. The Board made the following comments about
Professor Yang’s testimony:
Another result of Yang’s testimony is an
affirmation for the panel that while Courts in China may occasionally be less
scrupulous or ethical than courts in Canada,
nevertheless they are usually concerned with the appropriate rule of law in
accordance with established legal procedures. For this reason, the panel gives
considerable weight to the findings of the Chinese courts in this case, without
accepting them as conclusive.
[24]
The
Board then turned to the applicant’s link to Dominica. The
applicant was asked about his application for a Dominican passport,
specifically why he had used a different name and signature than that on his
Chinese passport. The Board noted that the applicant’s answers could be
described as somewhat ingenuous as he answered questions by asking questions.
Moreover, the Board stated that “from all this shifting and inconsistent testimony
[the Board] take[s] a negative inference regarding the claimant’s credibility
as a witness.” The Board also noted that while the applicant claimed that he
and his family had obtained Dominican passports because of the convenience
involved when traveling internationally without having to obtain visas required
by travelling Chinese citizens, the applicant had used his Dominica citizenship
when it was convenient in other circumstances as well. The Board noted that
“the claimant’s behaviour [was] apparently that of someone who frequently
regards his own convenience or self-interest as being of more immediate
importance than the applicable regulations or laws.”
Credibility
of the Applicant
[25]
The
Board provided a very lengthy analysis of the applicant’s credibility and
provided numerous specific instances that raised credibility concerns. The
Board’s ultimate determination was that, having considered the totality of the
applicant’s testimony, there were “many instances where the claimant has
provided testimony that is evasive or less than the whole truth.” The Board
went on to state at page 29 of its decision:
There are also numerous and significant
instances where the claimant has simply not told the truth. These instances
cannot be dismissed as a few examples where the claimant was tired or stressed,
or where there may have been a question of some misunderstandings with the
interpreters, both of whom were consistently highly professional and capable
throughout the hearing. From the many instances of contradictory, inconsistent,
shifting, evasive and implausible testimony I find the claimant to be a witness
who is not credible.
[26]
In
conclusion, the Board determined that for the foregoing reasons the applicant
was excluded from refugee protection.
Issues
[27]
The
applicant submitted the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether
the Board erred in finding the applicant excluded from refugee protection under
Article 1F(b):
- By
failing to specify which alleged criminal acts or offences formed the
basis of the determination, and so rendering unclear reasons;
- By
applying an incorrect legal analysis;
- By
rendering the decision in the absence of sufficient credible and
trustworthy evidence, ignoring evidence, and rendering an unreasonable
determination;
- By
improperly rendering a negative credibility determination, and thereby
relying on irrelevant considerations; or
- By
rendering a negative credibility determination that was patently
unreasonable, or not in accordance with the evidence.
[28]
I
would rephrase the issues as follows:
1. What
is the appropriate standard of review?
2. Did
the Board fail to identify which criminal acts led to its finding of exclusion?
3. Did
the Board commit an error of law in failing to apply the correct legal analysis
of Article 1F(b)?
4. Was
the Board’s finding of exclusion unreasonable given the evidence before it?
5. Did
the Board err in finding that the applicant was not a credible witness?
[29]
For
simplicity, I have summarized the parties’ arguments under the following
headings:
- Failure
to specify which criminal acts led to exclusion
- Incorrect
legal analysis of Article 1F(b)
- Absence
of sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence
- Concealed
Mortgage
- Lack
of payment under share transfer agreement
- False
Deposit
- Interpol
correspondence and Chinese court judgements not credible
- Error
in finding exclusion on the basis of negative credibility
Applicant’s
Submissions
[30]
With
regards to the appropriate standard of review for cases dealing with Article
1F(b), the applicant submitted that in Harb v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCA 39 at paragraph 14, Justice Décary found
that findings of fact were to be reviewed on a standard of patent
unreasonableness, findings of mixed fact and law were to be reviewed on a
standard of reasonableness and interpretations of the exclusion clause were to
be reviewed on a standard of correctness.
- Failure
to specify which criminal acts led to exclusion
[31]
The
applicant’s first argument was to the effect that the Board erred in failing to
specify which alleged criminal acts or offences formed the basis of its
determination, and as such, rendered unclear reasons. In refusing a refugee
claim, the Board must provide sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible
reasons; the Board is required to make a clear finding with respect to which
act(s) formed the basis of the exclusion finding (Mehterian v. Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] FCJ No. 545 (FCA); Sivakumar
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C.
433 (CA); Ivanov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2004 FC 1210; Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [2003] FCJ No. 565 (CA); Iliev v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 493). It was submitted
that a number of alleged criminal offences were discussed by the Board and
therefore the Board was required to specify exactly which of those offences
formed the basis for the exclusion. The applicant noted the Board’s
determination that “with regards to these transactions, I find there is serious
reason to believe [the applicant] was complicit in fraudulent activities
related to LI”, and argued that the words “these transactions” was too vague to
meet the Board’s obligation. The applicant also submitted that although the
Board cited relevant sections of the Canadian and Chinese criminal codes, it
never engaged in an analysis of whether the alleged transactions met the
requirements of the sections and therefore the Board’s reasons are even more
unclear. It was further submitted that the only offences specified by the
Minister were a 58.8 million RMB mortgage, failure to make payments under the
share transfer agreement and forcing Zhang to forge a deposit receipt and a
remittance draft. Moreover, it was alleged that the evidence of these alleged
offences is flawed. The applicant concluded that as a result of these
considerations, it is obvious that the Board failed to identify the alleged
criminal offences upon which the exclusion was based and thus its reasons where
unclear.
- Incorrect
legal analysis of Article 1F(b)
[32]
The
applicant’s second major argument was that the Board applied the incorrect
legal analysis for Article 1F(b). It was submitted that exclusion should not be
applied for economic offences where there is a risk of the death penalty.
Exclusion should be applied restrictively (Pushpanathan v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982).
Moreover, the applicant argued that exclusion should only be applied in cases where
the crimes in question are persecutory offences, not simply economic offences.
It was noted that persecutory offences are almost always violent in nature (Brzezinski
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 F.C.
525 (T.D.)). Economic acts are only persecutory where they deprive a person of
their ability to survive, or otherwise impact on a person’s physical or moral
integrity (N.K. v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1995] F.C.J. No.
889 (T.D.)). The applicant submitted that there is no evidence of this in the
present case. The applicant also submitted that in considering exclusion, the
gravity of the offence should be weighed against consequences of removal.
Moreover, according to the applicant, this balancing must take place within the
exclusion analysis and not after. The applicant acknowledged that this is
contrary to the cases of Malouf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1506, and Gil v. Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 1 F.C. 508 wherein the
Federal Court of Appeal held that in making a refugee determination, inclusion
should be balanced against exclusion. The applicant submitted that Malouf above
and Gil above, are no longer good law in light of the Supreme Court of
Canada’s finding in United States of America v. Burns, [2001] 1
S.C.R. 283. The applicant submitted that in Burns above, the Supreme
Court of Canada held that the possibility of the death penalty should now be a
proper consideration in determining the applicability of Article 1F(b). The
applicant further noted that while in Gil above, the Federal Court of
Appeal ruled that the death penalty should not bar the application of 1F(b),
the Supreme Court of Canada in Burns above overruled this. In Burns above,
the Supreme Court of Canada held that extradition where the person in question
faces the death penalty violates sections 7 and 12 of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B
to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the Charter)
in all but exceptional circumstances. In Burns above, the alleged
offences were the murders of three immediate family members, yet the Court
still determined that exception circumstances were not present. When compared
to Burns above, it is obvious that the facts in the present case do not
give rise to exceptional circumstances. The applicant concluded this argument
stating that the applicant faces a possibility of the death penalty and as
such, exclusion should not have been considered by the Board.
- Absence
of sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence
[33]
The
applicant’s third argument was that the Board’s finding that there were serious
reasons for considering the applicant to have committed fraud was unreasonable
given the absence of sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence before the
Board. Specifically, the applicant took issue with the lack of credible and
trustworthy evidence regarding (1) the concealed mortgage, (2) the lack of
payments made under the share transfer agreement, and (3) the false deposit.
Moreover, the applicant submitted that the evidence relied upon, specifically
the Interpol correspondence from Chinese police and the Chinese court
proceedings, are not trustworthy evidence.
- Concealed
Mortgage
[34]
The
applicant submitted that in order to exclude the applicant, the Board had to be
satisfied that the Minister had provided sufficient credible evidence as to the
essential elements of fraud in both countries, namely intent, loss, and
causation. It was submitted that this was simply not the case. With regards to
the requirement of intent of fraud, the applicant submitted that his business
was highly profitable both before and during the merger, that he was the one
approached by Mr. Xu, and that the merger was beneficial to both companies. It
was submitted that the critical issue is the value of the applicant’s assets at
the time of FDG’s purchase of LI because if the value was sufficient to meet
the purchase price, then no crime was committed under Chinese or Canadian law.
The applicant submitted that the only direct evidence regarding the value of
assets at the time of the merger was the Asset Evaluation Report for HSS for
the end of 1996. This report established that HSS alone was worth 98.5563
million RMB, which is above the purchase price of LI and therefore there was no
possibility that the applicant had the intent of fraud. The applicant submitted
that to get around this credible evidence, the Board relied on the Minister’s
submission of an alleged mortgage worth 58.8 million RMB taken out prior to the
merger, as the existence of the undisclosed mortgage diminished the value of
the applicant’s assets. Therefore, the existence of the mortgage is the
lynchpin to the fraud allegations. The applicant highlighted the following
facts in support of a finding that the mortgage did not exist and noted that
none of these facts were addressed by the Board in its reasons:
- GS
identified HSS as a profitable company and potential buyer for LI shares,
thus GS obviously had no concerns about the ownership or assets of FDG or
HSS;
- CLG
investigated and audited HSS prior to the merger and found no trace of a
mortgage;
- KPMG
audited the assets of HSS and found no sign of a concealed mortgage;
- Both
the Chengdu City Stock Management Officer, and Chinese Securities
Regulatory Commission approved the securities transaction and found no
irregularities;
- LI’s
annual reports for 1997 and 1998 do not indicate any concern of a
concealed mortgage;
- The
Guangdong Economic Law Firm stated that the share transfer agreements were
“legal and effective”;
- Professor
Yang testified that all evaluation reports prepared by accountants and
auditors in a financial transaction should be presumed to be true and
accurate unless indications to the contrary given the serious criminal
consequences for issuing false reports;
- No
direct evidence whatsoever of this mortgage was ever provided to the
Board; and
- None
of the evidence before the Board even mentioned the existence of any
direct evidence of this mortgage.
[35]
The
applicant submitted that there was no evidence to support the finding that the
mortgage existed. The only reasonable conclusion is that no mortgage existed,
and as such, there was no intention of fraud on the part of the applicant and
consequently, no ground for exclusion. Given the centrality of this evidence
and the failure of the Board to mention it, the Board is presumed to have
ignored it (Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425 (F.C.T.D.) at paragraph 17).
- Lack
of payment under share transfer agreement
[36]
The
applicant submitted that he provided a reasonable explanation as to why
transfer of payments between the parties was unimportant as long as the parties
continued to enjoy the benefit of the increased profits from the newly merged,
listed LI. It was further submitted that the agreements contemplated late
payment of the scheduled instalments.
- False
Deposit
[37]
The
applicant argued that aside from the concealed mortgage, the other key element
of fraud in this case was the allegation that the applicant induced his
vice-manager (Zhang) to provide a false deposit document in 1997. It was
submitted that this accusation was fabricated by Zhang against the applicant in
order to justify the accusations against him, to seize control of the
applicant’s company and to force the applicant out. The applicant argued that
while the Chinese court proceedings cite as evidence Zhang’s confession, and
the alleged fraudulent bank and remittance documents, Zhang’s confession cannot
be considered credible for the following reasons:
- Zhang
was facing immense pressure for a conviction, as the only person
associated with the charges personally who had been arrested and brought
to trial;
- Zhang
had little chance of avoiding conviction and thus he likely sought
leniency in his sentence by ‘confessing’ that he was forced to commit the
offence; and
- There
is potential that Zhang was tortured by Chinese police.
[38]
The
applicant further submitted that in the absence of the actual documents, the Chinese
court’s consideration of the evidence cannot be trusted as documentary evidence
because the Chinese criminal judicial process is deeply flawed and politicized.
- Interpol
correspondence and Chinese court judgements not credible
[39]
The
applicant submitted that the only remaining allegations against him are the
judgments of the Sichuan courts and Interpol correspondence and they can
simply not be trusted. It was argued that the Chengdu court (that
rendered judgment in this case) has been specifically criticized by Amnesty
International for the use of fabricated evidence and incompetent judicial
decision-making. Further, while the Board suggested that Professor Yang
testified that the Chinese courts were reliable, this mischaracterizes his
testimony and ignores numerous statements to the contrary. It was noted that
Professor Yang’s testimony was to the effect that:
- “Local
protectionism” may have played a role in the court judgments against FDG
and Zhang and that this is a serious problem in China;
- In
the area in question, there are known cases of local businesspersons
working in collusion with local police to make threats, extort money, and
inflict torture and abuse;
- There
are many problems with the rule of law in China,
particularly in less developed in-land areas;
- There
are many problems with judicial independence in China
particularly in Sichuan;
- The
local government in provinces like Sichuan have a
variety of mechanisms of control over the judiciary including financial
and political control.
[40]
The
applicant submitted that the Board erred in relying on the Chinese court
decisions and Interpol correspondences as they are not credible. The applicant
further submitted that the Minister failed to provide any direct evidence of
the alleged acts of fraud and as a result, the Board erred in failing to draw
an adverse inference from the Minister’s failure to provide the best evidence
possible. While the Board is not bound by the normal rules of evidence, it
should nonetheless accord less weight to indirect hearsay evidence, especially
where more direct evidence is or should be available (Balili v. Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] FCJ No. 628; Ekwueme v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 495).
Tribunals should draw an adverse inference where a party has failed to produce
the best evidence that is or should be available to it (Ali v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 609; Bond v. N.B.
(Board of Management), [1992] NBJ No. 567 (N.B.C.A.); Kusi v. Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No. 523).
- Error
in finding exclusion on the basis of negative credibility
[41]
The
applicant’s fourth argument was that the Board’s finding that the applicant was
not a credible witness was patently unreasonable. It was submitted that any
perceived contradictions in the applicant’s testimony must be considered in
view of the fact that the applicant provided testimony for six days, mostly
under rigorous cross-examination. The applicant also noted that the Board’s
finding that the applicant was evasive is perverse given that it was the
applicant that provided every item of evidence (aside from the Interpol
correspondence) used by the Board to exclude the applicant. With regards to the
Board’s specific credibility findings, the applicant provided the following
responses in his affidavit:
- Regarding
the non-payment under the share transfer agreement, the applicant was not
evasive, but yet provided very clear reasons in his PIF narrative;
- Regarding
the alleged fraudulent bank deposit receipt, the applicant consistently
denied any involvement or knowledge;
- Regarding
the alleged concealed 58 million RMB mortgage, the questions to the
applicant were very unclear and tainted by interpretation errors, but he
always denied that the mortgage existed;
- Regarding
his testimony in general, any inconsistencies must be seen in light of the
length of the hearing, the very detailed questions asked of the applicant,
and the problems with translation;
- Regarding
the applicant’s wife’s English first name, the applicant forgot the name
because he has difficulty remembering English names;
- Regarding
the applicant’s purchase of property in Canada, the
interpretation of the question was ambiguous as to whether the Board was
referring to past or current ownership;
- Regarding
whether the applicant’s sons left Canada
voluntarily or were deported, the applicant honestly believes that his
sons were not deported because they left by purchasing their own airline
tickets;
- Regarding
when the applicant was arrested by Immigration, this is a non-contentious
fact and the applicant’s poor memory should not be held against him;
- Regarding
how and when the applicant learned of the refugee process, there was no
ambiguity in his answers; and
- Regarding
incorrect information provided to Immigration officials in prior
applications, the applicant has plausibly explained that some errors were
caused by his immigration advisors and there was no attempt to deceive the
Board.
Respondent’s
Submissions
- Failure
to specify which criminal acts led to exclusion
[42]
The
respondent submitted that there is no requirement that every element of the
alleged offence be identified, and particularized before article 1F(b) can be
relied upon (Zrig above). The Board is not required to engage in a
quasi-criminal inquiry to determine which specific fraudulent transactions the
applicant is guilty of. The respondent noted that the Board’s reasons clearly
and specifically set out, under the heading “Evidence and Fraud”, the various
transactions relied upon by the prosecution in China for the
arrest warrants. It was noted that there can be no doubt in the applicant’s
mind as to the nature of the charges against him forming the basis for
exclusion. The Board clearly identified the transactions that led to the
applicant’s exclusion.
- Incorrect
legal analysis of Article 1F(b)
[43]
The
respondent submitted that the Board applied the correct legal test in its
analysis of Article 1F(b). It was submitted that the Federal Court of Appeal
has conclusively stated that exclusion pursuant to Article 1F(b) may be based
on a purely economic crime (Xie v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1142 (F.C.A.)).
Moreover, it has been determined that in making a determination of exclusion,
the Refugee Protection Division is not concerned with the consequences of
removal from Canada (Xie above).
Thus, the Board was rightly not concerned that exclusion would lead to the
possibility of the death penalty. It was submitted that there remains a
pre-removal risk assessment process wherein the possibility of the death
penalty will be considered by the government. The respondent also noted that
the issue of assurances from China is not a matter for the Board, but yet for
the Canadian government should extradition occur. It was submitted that the
effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burns above, is that Canada does not
extradite persons to face the death penalty absent exceptional circumstances,
unless appropriate assurances are obtained from the country seeking
extradition. As the issue of assurances and ‘exceptional circumstances’ are not
within the scope of the Board’s mandate or expertise, the Board was correct in
not considering them. Jurisdiction of the Board is limited to determining the
issue of exclusion and not the consequences of removal (Xie above).
Moreover, the respondent submitted that as per Xie above, the Board is
not to engage in a balancing exercise between the nature of the offence and the
potential consequences. It was submitted that the applicant’s argument that the
decision in Burns above, should prompt a re-thinking of the issue of
exclusion is misguided. The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that the
Board’s jurisdiction is limited by the legislative scheme to the issue of
exclusion, and not to the consequences of removal (Xie above).
- Absence
of sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence
[44]
The
respondent submitted that in Xie above, the Federal Court of Appeal
affirmed that the Board could rely upon the arrest warrant against the
applicant as evidence to support the finding of exclusion. Direct evidence of
the crime is not required as the issue is not whether the crime was indeed
committed by the applicant, but whether there are serious reasons for
considering that he did (Xie above). It was submitted that the Board is
also entitled to rely upon the particulars in the arrest warrants. With regards
to the mortgage, the respondent noted that the Board did not find that the
mortgage in question existed. In fact, the Board concluded that the evidence on
the mortgage was inconclusive. Thus, the applicant’s arguments in this regard
are groundless.
- Error
in finding exclusion on the basis of negative credibility
[45]
The
respondent submitted that the Board had ample grounds for finding that the
applicant was not credible. It was further submitted that the Board was very
clear and explicit about what precise problems it had with the applicant’s
testimony. The respondent argued that no area of the applicant’s testimony was
free from inconsistency or evasion:
- The
applicant gave completely contradictory evidence as to why he did not
make payments to LI pursuant to the share transfer agreement;
- The
applicant denied asking Zhang, his vice-chair, to forge a bank deposit
slip to LI, but then acknowledged his authorization once confronted with
a relevant document with his signature;
- The
applicant gave evasive and contradictory evidence as to the existence of
the mortgage;
- The
applicant gave inconsistent evidence as to whether he was responsible for
the altered name on his Dominica passport;
- The
applicant gave vague and inconsistent evidence about his off-shore
investments in Dominica;
- The
applicant misled Canadian immigration officials as early as 1996 saying
that he set up his joint venture as a vehicle to transfer Chinese
business assets to Canada, but later conceded that his intention was to
run his Chinese company through the joint venture in the British Virgin
Islands;
- The
applicant lied to Canadian immigration authorities in stating that he
only had Dominican citizenship and maintained his lie when he applied for
an extension of his visitor’s status in Canada;
- The
applicant forgot his wife’s name despite having voluntarily offered it
the previous day;
- The
applicant gave contradictory evidence as to whether he ever bought
property in Canada;
- The
applicant lied about why his sons had left Canada saying that they had
run out of money for their studies, when in fact they were deported due
to their involvement with organized crime; and
- The
applicant gave inconsistent evidence regarding when he first knew of the
availability of making a refugee claim.
[46]
The
respondent submitted that the applicant’s arguments regarding the Board’s
credibility findings address mainly alternate inferences which he claims should
have been drawn by the Board. A finding is not patently unreasonable merely
because the evidence is consistent with other inferences (Sinan v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 188 at paragraph 11).
Moreover, the respondent submitted that the Board is not required to mention
all of the evidence before it and failure to do so does not mean that the
evidence was ignored (Taher v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1433 at paragraph 14).
Applicant’s
Reply
[47]
The
applicant submitted that while the Federal Court of Appeal in Xie above,
did hold that an economic offence can form the basis of exclusion, the
circumstances of this case are not similar to those in Xie above.
Specifically, the applicant noted that unlike in Xie above, the
uncontradicted evidence before the Board was that the applicant will likely be
sentenced to death for an economic offence. Moreover, the applicant submitted
that the case of Xie above, pre-dates Burns above, and that the
latter changed the law.
[48]
With
respect to the respondent’s argument concerning Xie above, and the
ability of the Board to rely on the Chinese arrest warrant, the applicant
submitted that Xie above, merely found that the Board was entitled to
give a warrant “a certain amount of weight” in appropriate circumstances. It
was submitted that the Court in Xie above, did not hold, as the
respondent alleges, that the Board may rely on a warrant to the exclusion of
any evidence to the contrary. The applicant submitted that while direct
evidence of a crime may not be required in every case, the absence of key
evidence in the present case can be enough to call into question the
allegations in a warrant, especially where there was evidence that the rule of
law is weak in China and the Chinese police and judicial system engage in
corrupt and/or politicized prosecutions.
[49]
The
applicant again submitted that while he is aware of the offences that he is alleged
to have committed, the Board failed to specify which offence(s) formed the
basis for exclusion.
[50]
And
finally, with regards to the alleged mortgage and the Board’s finding or lack
of finding thereof, the applicant submitted that the absence of direct evidence
of the mortgage means that the criminal allegations against the applicant
collapses and there cannot be a finding of intent to fraud on the part of the
applicant and as such, the Board’s finding of exclusion is unreasonable.
Analysis and
Decision
[51]
Issue
1
What is
the appropriate standard of review?
This
application for judicial review was heard before the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick, [2008]
S.C.J. No. 9 on March 7, 2008. Dunsmuir above, collapsed the standard of
reasonableness simpliciter and patent unreasonableness for a more
straightforward standard of reasonableness. Dunsmuir above, also
streamlined the steps to take in establishing the appropriate standard of
review, which was previously referred to as the “pragmatic and functional”
approach. The Supreme Court proposed a two step process at paragraph 62:
First, courts ascertain whether the jurisprudence has already
determined in a satisfactory manner the degree of [deference] to be accorded
with regard to a particular category of question. Second, where the first
inquiry proves unfruitful, courts must proceed to an analysis of the factors
making it possible to identify the proper standard of review.
[52]
In this
application the factors to consider in determining the standard of review for
each issue, if it has not been already established, are the existence of a
privative clause, a discrete and special administrative regime in which the
decision maker has special expertise, and the nature of the question as being
of central importance to the legal system and thus outside the specialized area
of the decision maker’s expertise, Dunsmuir above. While there is no
privative clause in IRPA, the Act and Regulations as well as jurisprudence in
this area suggests that there exists a discrete administrative regime with decision
makers’ that have specialized knowledge and expertise. Courts should,
therefore, not interfere unless there is a question of law that is of “central
importance to the legal system…and outside the…specialized area of expertise” (Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79,
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 77) of the Board.
[53]
This case has an
added factor of the Board’s interpretation of the Convention, however. Dunsmuir
above, states, “[w]hile an administrative decision maker like the Board always
risks having its determination of an external statute set aside on judicial
review”, jurisprudence has moved away from finding that it is always warranted.
It must be noted that IRPA complies with the Convention as was Parliament’s
intention on June 28, 2002 when it came into effect. Further, the Convention is
clearly part of an administrative regime regarding refugees of which the Board
has expertise. Nevertheless, the Federal Court of Appeal held that when
interpreting international law principles, the Board does not have more expertise
than the Court (Nagalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [2008] F.C.J. No. 670 and as such, is reviewable on the
standard of correctness.
[54]
The standard of
review for each of the remaining issues is determined to be as follows.
[55]
Issue 2: Did the Board
fail to identify which criminal acts led to its finding of exclusion?
This issue is, in my view, a
question of fact. Following Dunsmuir above, this issue is reviewable on
a standard of reasonableness.
[56]
Issue 3:
Did the Board commit an error of law in failing to apply the correct legal
analysis of Article 1F(b)?
This issue raised by the
applicant, is in my view, a question of law reviewable on a correctness
standard. Dunsmuir above states:
[w]hen applying the correctness standard,
a reviewing court will not show deference to the decision maker’s reasoning
process; it will rather undertake its own analysis of the question.
As stated above, the Board made a
decision based on its interpretation of the Convention Article 1F(b) which required
an evaluation of international law.
[57]
Issue 4:
Was the Board’s finding of exclusion unreasonable given the evidence before it?
This issue raised a question
of fact and law reviewable on a standard of reasonableness. The Board’s finding
of exclusion based on the evidence before it required consideration where the
legal issues cannot easily be separated from the factual ones. In Dunsmuir
above, the court explained that deference usually applies automatically in this
case unless there are constitutional questions involved. Further, where a Board
is interpreting its own statute or statutes closely connected to its function,
deference may be warranted. In this case, the Board’s interpretation of
international law related to refugees which is in accordance into its own
statute suggests a deferential approach.
[58]
Issue 5:
Did the Board err in finding that the applicant was not a credible witness?
This issue raised by the
applicant is a question of fact and reviewable on the standard of
reasonableness. In Dunsmuir above, the Supreme Court noted that board
decisions related to fact and credibility will continue to attract a high
standard of deference. Issues related to reviewing credibility findings made by
the Board attract the deferential standard of reasonableness (Sukhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
[2008] F.C.J. No. 515.
[59]
Issue
2
Did the
Board fail to identify which criminal acts led to its finding of exclusion?
The
applicant submitted that the Board erred in failing to clearly identify which
criminal acts led to its finding of exclusion. In support of this argument, the
applicant cited a number of cases. Having reviewed these, I find only one to be
of particular relevance to the situation in the present case. In Sivakumar
above, at paragraph 33, the Federal Court of Appeal stated the following
regarding the Board’s duty to identify which offences led to finding of
exclusion:
Given the seriousness of the possible
consequences of the denial of the appellant's claim on the basis of section
F(a) of Article 1 of the Convention to the appellant and the relatively low
standard of proof required of the Minister, it is crucial that the Refugee
Division set out in its reasons those crimes against humanity for which there
are serious reasons to consider that a claimant has committed them. In failing
to make the required findings of fact, I believe that the Refugee Division can
be said to have made an error of law.
I accept the applicant’s
argument that the Board has a duty to identify which offences in question form
the basis for the exclusion. However, in my opinion, the Board in the present
case did not fail to do so.
[60]
To
begin, under the section entitled “Evidence of Fraud” at pages 7 and 8 of the
decision, the Board considered the two Interpol warrants against the applicant
and explained which offences they each alleged the applicant had committed. The
Board went on to note the relevant section of the China Criminal Law, and to
identify the parallel section of the Canadian Criminal Code as subsection
380(1). Moreover, I note that the majority of the Board’s decision deals with
the specific acts alleged to have occurred in the Interpol warrants,
specifically the concealed mortgage, the failure to make payments on the share
transfer agreement and the false deposit.
[61]
I
do recognize the applicant’s argument that the Board never explicitly listed
the offences; however, this is also not a situation where the Board failed to
provide sufficient indication as to which offences constituted its finding of exclusion.
I am of this opinion because of the care taken by the Board to identify the
offences and acts to which the applicant was alleged to have committed.
Moreover, in the Board’s final section entitled “Summary and Assessment”, the
Board once again identifies the two Interpol warrants and the specific acts
that the applicant is alleged to have committed, and then proceeds to state
that while the evidence regarding the concealed mortgage was not conclusive,
the “the other charges were apparently properly and convincingly documented in
the Chinese courts”. The Board goes on to find that “plausible evidence exists
that serious crimes of fraud were committed in China.”
[62]
With
regards to the applicant’s submission that the Board failed to assess whether
the elements of the criminal code offences were met in the criminal acts
alleged to have been committed by the applicant, I find no merit in this
argument. There is no requirement on the Board in rendering a finding of
exclusion to ensure that every element of the alleged offence be identified,
and particularized (Zrig above). I would not allow the judicial review
on this ground.
[63]
Issue
3
Did the
Board commit an error of law in failing to apply the correct legal analysis of
Article 1F(b)?
The
applicant’s argument on this issue was twofold. Firstly, the applicant
submitted that the alleged criminal acts are not the kind to which exclusion
under Article 1F(b) should apply. Secondly, the applicant submitted that the
Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Burns above, overruled the Federal
Court of Appeal’s decisions in Gil above, and Malouf above, such
that the Refugee Protection Board is now required to balance the gravity of the
offence against the consequences of removal. Moreover, it was submitted that
the Supreme Court’s decision in Burns above, indicates that where, as in
the present case, the risk is the possibility of the death penalty, exclusion
should not be applied.
[64]
I
intend to first address whether the alleged criminal acts in question are ones
for which Article 1F(b) can apply. Article 1F of the Convention reads as
follows:
F. The provisions of this Convention
shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons
for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against
peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the
international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious
non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to
that country as a refugee;
(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
[65]
The
applicant argued that persecutory offences are almost always violent in nature
(Brzezinski above) and that only economic acts that deprive a person of
their ability to survive, or otherwise impact on a person’s physical or moral
integrity are persecutory (N.K. above). Having reviewed the cited case
law, I am not convinced that they stand for the principles as articulated by
the applicant. Moreover, in Xie above, Justice Kelen of this Court
engaged in a very thorough analysis of whether a purely economic crime
committed for personal gain could be considered a “serious non-political crime”
for the purposes of Article 1F(b). The Court in Xie above, relied on the
gravity of the sentence imposed on the Canadian equivalent of the crime alleged
to be committed and found that an offence of fraud over $5,000 as described in
paragraph 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada above, was indeed a
“serious non-political crime” for the purposes of Article 1F(b). Given the
Court’s finding in Xie above, I am satisfied that there is no question
that the alleged offence in the present and its Canadian equivalent under
paragraph 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, qualified as
a “serious non-political crime”.
[66]
Having
found that the alleged criminal acts are indeed ones for which Article 1F(b)
applies, I will now consider the applicant’s argument that as per Burns
above, the Board was required to engage in a balancing of the gravity of the
offence against the consequences of removal.
[67]
The
Federal Court of Appeal has been very clear on numerous occasions that the
Refugee Protection Board in making a determination under Article 1F(b) need not
engage in a balancing of the seriousness of the crime versus the consequences
of deportation. For instance, at paragraph 43 of Gil above, the Court
stated:
One final point. Another panel of this
Court has already rejected the suggestion made by a number of authors that Article
1F(a) requires a kind of proportionality test which would weigh the persecution
likely to be suffered by the refugee claimant against the gravity of his crime.
Whether or not such a test may be appropriate for Article 1F(b) seems to me to
be even more problematical. As I have already indicated, the claimant to whom
the exclusion clause applies is ex hypothesi in danger of
persecution; the crime which he has committed is by definition
"serious" and will therefore carry with it a heavy penalty which at a
minimum will entail a lengthy term of imprisonment and may well include death.
This country is apparently prepared to extradite criminals to face the death
penalty and, at least for a crime of the nature of that which the appellant has
admitted committing, I can see no reason why we should take any different
attitude to a refugee claimant. It is not in the public interest that this
country should become a safe haven for mass bombers.
[68]
In
Malouf above at paragraph 4, the Federal Court of Appeal again reiterated
its finding in Gil above:
[…] Paragaph [sic] (b) of Article
1F of the Convention should receive no different treatment than paragraphs (a)
and (c) thereof: none of them requires the Board to balance the seriousness of
the Applicant's conduct against the alleged fear of persecution. In Gil,
25 Imm. L.R. (2nd) 209 we examined the issue with particular reference to
paragraph 1F(b) and determined that a proportionality test was only appropriate
for the purposes of determining whether or not a serious crime should be viewed
as political. That question does not arise in this case. We are not persuaded
that our decision in Gil was wrong.
[69]
The
applicant submitted that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Burns
above, which post-dates the decision in Gil above, and Malouf
above, has changed the law in that a balancing of the two relevant factors is
now required.
[70]
In
Burns above, the Supreme Court of Canada found that extradition to face
the death penalty violated section 7 of the Charter above, and
that without assurances from the country to which the individuals were being
deported the violation could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter
above. I am not convinced of the applicant’s argument.
[71]
Firstly,
the situation in Burns above, is simply not comparable to the present
case. In Burns above, the Court dealt with the extradition of two
Canadian citizens to the United States of America where they
were each wanted for three counts of aggravated first degree murder. The
present case deals with a refugee application. The differences between
extradition and refugee law are not to be forgotten (Gil above at
paragraph 11). “The distinction between entry and removal is an important one
because, as the Supreme Court noted at paragraph 102 of Suresh v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, the power of a state to
refuse entry are broader than its powers to deport” (Xie above at
paragraph 43).
[72]
Secondly,
as a corollary to my first observation, the decision under review in the present
case is not determinative of the applicant’s removal unlike in the situation in
Burns above. As stated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Xie above
at paragraph 36:
As the review of the statutory scheme has
shown, the purpose of the exclusion is not to remove claimants from Canada. It is to exclude them from
refugee protection. Claimants who are excluded under section 98 continue to
have the right to seek protection under section 112.
[73]
That
is to say that the result of the Board’s negative decision is not deportation;
the applicant can still apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. In my opinion,
it is at this stage that the applicant’s arguments regarding Burns above,
are more appropriately considered. That is not to say that I accept the
applicant’s argument that Burns above, has changed the current law
surrounding Article 1F(b). I merely find that consideration of these arguments
is more appropriate when removal is imminent.
[74]
As
such, in my opinion, the legal analysis of Article 1F(b) as articulated by the
Federal Court in Gil above, and Malouf above, remains good law.
As this is the analysis applied by the Board in the present decision, I see no
reason to interfere with the Board’s decision. I would not allow the judicial
review on this ground.
[75]
Issue
4
Was the
Board’s finding of exclusion unreasonable given the evidence before it?
The applicant
submitted that the Board’s finding of exclusion was unreasonable given the lack
of direct evidence supporting the applicant’s committal of the alleged criminal
offences. Moreover, the applicant argued that the Board erred in relying almost
exclusively on the Interpol warrants and Chinese court proceedings, and failed
to consider evidence supporting the applicant’s position.
[76]
I
do not agree with the applicant that the Board failed to consider evidence
relating to the concealed mortgage, the lack of payment under the share
agreement and the false deposit. It is evident in the Board’s decision that it
clearly reviewed all the evidence surrounding these, but simply did not find
the applicant’s evidence and testimony credible. For instance, with regards to
the mortgage, the Board on several occasions noted discrepancies and vagueness
in the applicant’s testimony. The Board noted that the applicant’s answers to questions
about the mortgage did not acknowledge its existence, but also did not outright
deny it. The Board further noted that “[l]ater in the hearing as the
significance of the existence of this particular mortgage became clearer, the
claimant now emphatically denied its very existence.”
[77]
With
regards to the Board’s apparent reliance on the Interpol warrants and Chinese
court proceedings, this Court in Xie above, dealt with the same issue.
In that case the applicant also argued that the Interpol warrant relied upon by
the Board was inadequate evidence of the alleged offence. The Court in Xie above,
at paragraph 23, noted that the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings
to establish that the applicant committed a crime is “something ‘more than
suspicion or conjecture’ but less than evidence on the balance of
probabilities”. In Xie above, the Court determined that there was
nothing unreasonable in the Board’s assessment of the evidence.
[78]
In
the present case, the Board relied on the Interpol warrants and the Chinese
court proceedings to find that the standard was met for exclusion under Article
1F(b). The Board carefully considered the validity of the Interpol warrant and
found it trustworthy. Moreover, the Board considered expert evidence from
Professor Yang on the Chinese court and police systems and stated that his
testimony was “an affirmation for the panel [the Board] that while courts in
China may occasionally be less scrupulous or ethical than courts in Canada,
nevertheless they are usually concerned with the appropriate rule of law in
accordance with established legal procedures”. The Board clearly did not take
the Interpol warrant or the Chinese court proceedings without first assessing
whether they were sufficiently trustworthy to be depended on. The applicant has
failed to convince me that there is anything unreasonable about the Board’s
overall determination in light of the evidence before it. I would not allow the
judicial review on this ground.
[79]
Issue
5
Did the
Board err in finding that the applicant was not a credible witness?
The Board
found that the applicant was not a credible witness. Given the evidence before
the Board, I find that there was nothing unreasonable with this finding. The
Board noted that testimony given under oath was presumed to be valid unless
there was reason to doubt its truthfulness. However, the Board went on to
provide a number of reasons for which they doubted the truthfulness of the
applicant’s testimony. The Board noted the applicant’s apparent lack of
business knowledge for such an experienced businessman. Moreover, the Board
noted that the applicant’s testimony was evasive and confusing when answering
questions, was filled with inconsistencies, and was often changed when
confronted with contradictory evidence. The Board provided over seven pages of
specific examples wherein the Board had credibility concerns with the
applicant’s testimony. There were ample grounds for the Board to find that the
applicant was not credible. I see no reason to interfere with the Board’s
finding.
[80]
The
application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[81]
The
parties shall have ten days after the date of this decision to submit any
proposed serious question of general importance for my consideration for
certification. A further period of five days is allowed for any reply to any
proposed question.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
ANNEX
Relevant
Statutory Provisions
The relevant
statutory provisions are set out in this section.
The United Nations Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, [1969] Can. T.S. No. 6:
F. The
provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to
whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has
committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as
defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in
respect of such crimes;
(b) he has
committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior
to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) he has
been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.
|
F.
Les dispositions de cette Convention ne seront pas applicables aux personnes
dont on aura des raisons sérieuses de penser :
a)
Qu'elles ont commis un crime contre la paix, un crime de guerre ou un rime
contre l'humanité, au sens des instruments internationaux élaborés pour
prévoir des dispositions relatives à ces crimes;
b)
Qu'elles ont commis un crime grave de droit commun en dehors du pays
d'accueil avant d'y être admises comme réfugiés;
c)
Qu'elles se sont rendues coupables d'agissements contraires aux buts et aux
principes des Nations Unies.
|
The Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA):
96. A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a
well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
(a) is outside
each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that
fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those
countries; or
(b) not having
a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual
residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to
that country.
97.(1)
A person in need of protection is a person in Canada
whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not
have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence,
would subject them personally
(a) to a
danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the
meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
(b) to a risk
to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
(i) the person
is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the
protection of that country,
(ii) the risk
would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced
generally by other individuals in or from that country,
(iii) the risk
is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in
disregard of accepted international standards, and
(iv) the risk
is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or
medical care.
(2) A person
in Canada who is a member of a class of persons
prescribed by the regulations as being in need of protection is also a person
in need of protection.
|
96.
A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui,
craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion,
de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions
politiques :
a)
soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du
fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces
pays;
b)
soit, si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel
elle avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne
veut y retourner.
97.(1)
A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et
serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la
nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa
résidence habituelle, exposée :
a)
soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la
torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture;
b)
soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et
inusités dans le cas suivant :
(i)
elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
(ii)
elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes
originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
(iii)
la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles
infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou
occasionnés par elles,
(iv)
la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des
soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
(2)
A également qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au
Canada et fait partie d’une catégorie de personnes auxquelles est reconnu par
règlement le besoin de protection.
|