Docket: IMM-2344-13
Citation:
2014 FC 451
Ottawa, Ontario, May 9, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Boivin
|
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
YINGLI XIE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an application for judicial review
pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 (the Act) of a decision made by the Refugee Protection Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) on March 7, 2013, wherein the
Board rejected the applicant’s application for refugee protection.
I.
Factual background
[2]
Yingli Xie (the applicant) is a citizen of the
People’s Republic of China (China).
[3]
The applicant claims that, after a personal
crisis, she was introduced to the Catholic faith and started attending an
underground church on January 31, 2010. On August 15, 2010, the Public Security
Bureau (PSB) discovered the underground church. The applicant fled and went
into hiding. On August 16, 2010, the PSB searched the applicant’s family home
in order to find her. The applicant claims that she understood then that she
could not stay in China and decided to leave the country with the assistance of
an agent.
[4]
She arrived in Vancouver, Canada, on September 30, 2010. Fearing persecution in China because of her Catholic faith, she
claimed protection in Toronto on November 22, 2010.
[5]
The Board heard the applicant’s claim on January
28, 2013. An interpreter was present at the hearing since the applicant did not
understand English. On March 7, 2013, the Board rejected her claim because it
found that the applicant was not credible when she alleged having been
persecuted because of her Catholic faith.
[6]
The Board finally determined that the applicant
failed to demonstrate that she would face persecution if she returned to the Guangdong province. While the documentary evidence suggests some level of discrimination
and harassment towards underground Christian worshippers, especially
high-ranking Church officials, nothing indicates that lay practitioners of
Roman Catholicism are persecuted in the Guangdong province (Board’s decisions
at paras 23-43).
II.
Issues
[7]
The sole issue in this case is the following:
Did the Board commit a breach of procedural fairness by failing to provide the
applicant with proper interpretation at the hearing?
III.
Standard of review
[8]
The present application raises an alleged breach
of procedural fairness by the Board. As stated by the Federal Court of Appeal,
such an issue “is reviewed as a question of law. No deference is due. The
decision-maker has either complied with the content of the duty of fairness
appropriate for the particular circumstances, or has breached this duty” (Sketchley
v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404 at para 53, [2006] 3 FCR 392; see
also Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) v Ontario (Minister of
Labour), 2003 SCC 29 at paras 100 102. 103, [2003] SCJ No 28 [CUPE]).
IV.
Analysis
[9]
The applicant essentially argues that the Board
breached procedural fairness by proceeding with the hearing after counsel for
the applicant raised objections concerning the quality of the interpretation
provided. The applicant does not otherwise challenge the reasonableness of the
Board’s decision.
[10]
The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the
right to interpretation (section 14 of the Charter) is a constitutional
guarantee of any accused in a criminal matter and should be considered as a
principle of fundamental justice (R v Tran, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951 at para 66,
117 DLR (4th) 7 at paras 36, 44). The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that
this guarantee also applies to immigration proceedings before the Board (Mohammadian
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCA 191 at para 4,
[2001] 4 FC 85).
[11]
The Supreme Court of Canada also defined the
content of this constitutional guarantee as the right to a continuous, precise
and impartial interpretation. There is a breach of the right to interpretation
if there is a possibility that the applicant “may not have understood a part of
the proceedings by virtue of his or her difficulty with the language being used
in court” (R v Tran, above at para 66).
[12]
The applicant points to four (4) pages of the
transcripts of the Board’s hearing (Applicant’s Record at 60-64) where issues
of interpretation arose. According to the applicant, the Board should have
stopped the hearing and arrange for proper interpretation. Instead, the Board
indicated that the applicant’s objection was on the record and that the
interpreter’s understanding of Catholic terminology would not be further
addressed unless they “run into problems” (Applicant’s Record at 61).
[13]
Relying on the transcript, the applicant submits
that her right to interpretation has been breached by the Board’s decision to
proceed with the hearing after it became clear that the interpreter was not
familiar with certain Catholic terms. For instance, the translation concern
raised by the applicant arose at the hearing before the Board on the meaning of
a very technical terminology in the Catholic faith: “rosary”. Hence, the
applicant’s concern stems from the fact that the interpreter mentioned that she
was not familiar with some Catholic terms. The applicant did not raise other
aspect related to the translation.
[14]
The Board did not take issue with the applicant’s
identity as a member of the Catholic faith (Applicant’s record p 18; Tribunal
record, vol. 3, p 571). Even if the interpreter was not familiar with certain
Catholic terms, the applicant’s counsel failed to point to any part of the
proceeding that was not understood by the applicant. The applicant failed to
convince this Court that the deficiencies alleged in the interpretation process
are material to the case at bar. When reading the decision as a whole, the
applicant’s rights to procedural fairness was not breached and the alleged
breach could not have affected the outcome of the decision of the Board (Patel
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 55, 288 NR 48;
Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. V Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board,
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 202). Indeed, the Court recalls that the Board’s credibility
concerns were unrelated to the applicant’s claim to be Catholic. The Board drew
negative credibility inferences on the evasive and inconsistent testimony, the
pursuit by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) and the lack of corroborating
documentary evidence. These issues go to the heart of the applicant’s claim (Fu
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 155, [2011] FCJ
No 353 (QL)).
[15]
The Court finds that the Board’s decision was
well-reasoned, was supported by the evidence and complied with principles of
procedural fairness. Its intervention is thus not warranted.
[16]
For the reasons above, the application for
judicial review will be dismissed. No question was proposed for certification
and none arises.
Email this Content