Docket: IMM-11556-12
Citation:
2014 FC 1062
Ottawa, Ontario, November 13, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
BAO MING XU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Judgment
delivered orally in Toronto on November 7, 2013)
[1]
The Applicant’s application for refugee status
was denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board [the Board] in a decision dated
October 23, 2012. The Board did not believe that the Applicant became a Falun
Gong practitioner in the U.S.A. or that he continued to practice after he
returned to China. The Board concluded that the Applicant’s refugee claim was
fraudulent and therefore rejected the Notice of Summoning he provided to show
that he was wanted by Chinese authorities. Finally, the Board also concluded
that the Applicant’s practice of Falun Gong in Canada was not genuine.
[2]
In my view, the wholesale rejection of the
Applicant’s credibility was reasonable for the following reasons:
1.
The Applicant’s evidence about when he started
his Falun Gong practice on a boat in China was inconsistent. At one point, he
said January 2007 and at another, he said July 2007.
2.
The Applicant’s evidence was inconsistent about
when he started his Falun Gong practice group. He said at one point that he
started the group in 2007 but at another time, he said that the authorities had
inquired about the group in October 2006.
3.
The Applicant’s evidence was inconsistent about
the membership of his Falun Gong practice group. At one point, he said that it
was comprised of members and relatives and at another time, he said it included
members, relatives, friends and neighbours.
4.
Lastly, the Applicant’s evidence was
inconsistent about the number of group members who were arrested after the PSB
raid. In his Personal Identification Form, the number was four and in his
testimony, the number was three.
[3]
There are three issues:
Issue I: Was it
reasonable for the Board to reject the PSB Notice of Summoning as a fraudulent
document when other documents with similar appearance which arrived in the same
package from China were accepted?
[4]
In my view, the Board did not reject the Notice
of Summoning simply because fraudulent documentation is available in China. The rejection occurred in the context of the finding that the claim about Falun Gong
practice in China was fraudulent. In my view, it was reasonable to conclude
that, if the Applicant had fabricated his claim, then the only document which
supported that claim was also a fabrication.
Issue II: Did the
Board impose too onerous a standard on the Applicant with regard to his
knowledge of Falun Gong?
[5]
The context is important on this issue. This
Applicant had practiced Falun Gong for eight years before the hearing. Two of
those years were spent in the United States where he practised daily on his own
and weekly in a group. His testimony was that he read the Zhuan Falun six or
seven times but that he didn’t understand everything. This evidence was
consistent with the fact that, although he could read, he had a Grade 5
education. On his return to China, he led a group of practitioners and taught
four of the five exercises to the group.
[6]
The Applicant relies on three decision of the Federal
Court which say that the threshold for knowledge of a religion is quite low. See
Fang Chen v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2007 FC 270 at
para. 16; Si Hui Huang v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
2008 FC 346 at paras. 10 and 11; and Lien Lin v The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, 2012 FC 288 at paras. 59-61. However, these cases involved
Applicants who had practiced Falun Gong for a short time compared to the
Applicant in this case. As well, the Applicants in these cases did not purport
to lead groups of Falon Gong practitioners.
[7]
Accordingly, in my view, these cases are not
applicable. I have concluded that it was reasonable to require greater
knowledge of the Applicant because of his eight years of practice and his
leadership role.
Issue III: Was the
higher standard reasonably applied?
[8]
This Applicant did have some knowledge of Falun
Gong. For example, he described Exercise #3 correctly; he was able to say that
Exercise #1 involved ten movements which again, he described correctly; he
named the 5 Exercises correctly; and he also named the nine chapters in Zhuan
Falun. However, this knowledge did not satisfy the Board.
[9]
The Board noted that of nine chapters in Zhuan
Falun, he had only some knowledge of two. As well, he had no information about the
health principles, even though they had been the reason he initially began to
practice. Further, there were two subjects about which he had no knowledge; he
did not know about energy flow when one touches the body and he did not know
the significance of the hollow fists.
[10]
In my view on the facts of this case, the
Board’s conclusion that the Applicant’s knowledge of Falun Gong was
insufficient falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.
[11]
For these reasons, the application was
dismissed.
[12]
The parties indicated that there was no question
for certification for appeal.
Email this Content