Date:
20130521
Docket:
IMM-7032-12
Citation:
2013 FC 523
Vancouver, British Columbia,
May 21, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
|
|
ZONG JIE CHEN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
Applicant seeks judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the Act) of a decision of the
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the
Board), dated June 12, 2012, wherein the Board determined that the
Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection (the Decision).
[2]
For
the following reasons, the application will be allowed.
Background
[3]
The
Applicant is a 26-year-old male and a citizen of the People’s Republic of China from Fujian province. His claim under sections 96 and 97 of the Act is based on his identity
as a Roman Catholic.
[4]
The
Applicant’s parents are Roman Catholics who attended a registered Catholic
church and raised the Applicant in that church. However, he started attending
an unregistered illegal Catholic church on January 31, 2010 after being
introduced to it by a friend.
[5]
The
underground church was raided by the Public Service Bureau (the PSB) during a
service on April 25, 2010. The Applicant was not present but was later contacted
by his friend and told that at least four of the church members had been
arrested. The Applicant immediately went into hiding.
[6]
The
Applicant learned from his father that the PSB had come to his house on April
26, 2010, and asked about his whereabouts. His family was told that he was
wanted for participating in an illegal church. The PSB appeared at his home again
on April 30, 2010, and demanded to know why the Applicant had not
surrendered. His family was told that he would be arrested and charged.
[7]
Fearing
arrest and torture, the Applicant fled China and came to Canada with the help of a smuggler on October 31, 2010.
[8]
The
Applicant claims that the PSB attended his home again on November 22, 2010,
this time with a warrant for his arrest. They searched his home and seized his
passport, leaving with the family a seized item receipt, dated November
22, 2010 (the Receipt). The Receipt has been translated and indicates that the
reason for the passport’s seizure is the Applicant’s involvement
in illegal religious services.
The Decision
[9]
The
Board identified the Applicant’s credibility as the determinative issue and
dismissed the claim.
Discussion
[10]
One
adverse credibility finding is particularly problematic and in my view, it
determines the outcome of this application.
[11]
The
Board stated that the Applicant’s passport was allegedly seized by the PSB in
November 2011. The Board found it implausible that the PSB would have waited
one year and seven months to seize his passport if it had actually been seeking
the Applicant in April 2010. On this basis, the Receipt was found to be fraudulent.
[12]
However,
the Board misstated the facts. The Applicant’s Personal Information Form and
his testimony at the hearing made it clear that his passport was seized in
November 2010. The English translation of the Receipt erroneously stated “2011”
but the numerical form of “2010” is found on the original Chinese document.
This translation error was pointed out to the Board at the hearing by counsel
for the Applicant and the correct date was noted. However, it appears that the
correction was overlooked by the Board when it prepared the Decision.
[13]
Counsel
for the Applicant argues that the Board’s mistake led it to ignore the Receipt
which is an important corroborating document. Counsel for the Respondent agrees
that the Receipt is dated November 2010 and not November 2011. However, the
Respondent submits that the Board’s credibility finding is reasonable because
even a seven-month delay in seizing the passport would not be plausible if
the Applicant was actually being sought by the PSB in April 2010.
[14]
In
my view, the Board’s error is material and warrants setting the Decision aside.
The error led it to dismiss the only piece of corroborating evidence submitted
by the Applicant.
[15]
I
also accept the Applicant’s submission that, had the Board not discounted the
Receipt, it might have reached a different conclusion about the documents
dealing with the Applicant’s risk of persecution in Fujian. In particular, it might have given more weight to a document at paragraph 17 of the
Decision which the Board understood to indicate that local officials in Fujian continue to arrest Catholic priests and parishioners [emphasis added].
[16]
In
these circumstances, the Applicant’s allegations must be reassessed.
[17]
No
question was posed for certification pursuant to section 74(d) of the Act.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the Decision is hereby set aside and sent
back for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel of the Board.
“Sandra J. Simpson”
Email this Content