Docket: IMM-6996-13
Citation:
2015 FC 137
Ottawa, Ontario, February
3, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JINFENG ZHUANG
(A.K.A. JINFENG ZHUANG)
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr Jinfeng Zhuang sought refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of religious persecution in China. He claimed that the Public Security
Bureau (PSB) raided the Christian house church he was attending in June 2008. The
PSB allegedly arrested, interrogated, detained and beat him, releasing him only
after he paid a fine. Mr Zhuang maintains that he attended another house church
shortly thereafter and it, too, was raided by the PSB. While he managed to
escape and find his way to Canada, he fears that he will be persecuted if he
returns to China.
[2]
A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
dismissed Mr Zhuang’s refugee claim based on a lack of credible evidence. Mr
Zhuang submits that the Board’s adverse credibility findings were unsupported
by the evidence and, therefore, its conclusion was unreasonable. He asks me to
quash the Board’s decision and order another panel of the Board to reconsider
his claim.
[3]
I agree that the Board’s decision was
unreasonable. Several of its negative credibility findings were not supported
by the evidence before it. Accordingly, I must allow this application for
judicial review.
[4]
The sole issue is whether the Board’s decision
was unreasonable.
II.
The Board’s Decision
[5]
The Board summarized Mr Zhuang’s account of
events. He claimed to have sought out a Christian church because he was
depressed after his family’s land had been expropriated. He attended the church
in June 2008, and fled China for the United States in August of that year.
However, the Board found no proof that Mr Zhuang was actually in China during that time frame.
[6]
After the PSB raided the church he attended on
June 29, 2008, Mr Zhuang went into hiding. Mr Zhuang claimed that the PSB was
looking for him at his home, but the Board was concerned that he was unable to
explain how the PSB knew that he was at the church on that date. Further, Mr
Zhuang’s employment record showed that he was employed at his uncle’s internet
company from August 2007 to August 2008, which the Board found to be contrary
to his claim to have been in hiding from the PSB.
[7]
The Board also drew an adverse inference from Mr
Zhuang’s failure to produce an arrest warrant which he said the PSB had shown
his parents. Without any kind of corroborating evidence, the Board doubted that
Mr Zhuang was actually wanted by the PSB.
[8]
The Board also noted that, when Mr Zhuang
arrived in the United States, he was asked why he had left China. He answered that he wanted to work in New York; he did not mention being sought by
the PSB.
[9]
Mr Zhuang sought asylum in the United States but did not stay long enough for a decision to be made on his application.
Instead, he travelled to Canada to make a claim here. Given that Mr Zhuang was
baptized and attended church in the United States, his decision not to pursue
his claim there caused the Board to question the genuineness of his asylum
claim.
[10]
Finally, the Board doubted whether Mr Zhuang was
actually a Christian.
[11]
Based on these concerns, the Board found that Mr
Zhuang had failed to present a credible refugee claim.
III.
Was the Board’s decision unreasonable?
[12]
The Minister concedes that some of the Board’s
rulings are questionable, but argues that the Board’s final conclusion can be
sustained on the basis of a number of sound findings.
[13]
I disagree. I find that most of the Board’s
credibility findings are unsupported by the evidence.
[14]
As mentioned, the Board found no proof that Mr
Zhuang was actually in China between June and August 2008. However, there were
two documents in evidence showing his presence in China in June 2008. The Board
did not cite them or explain why this evidence was unsatisfactory.
[15]
The Board faulted Mr Zhuang for failing to
explain how the PSB knew that he was at the house church on June 29, 2008. But
in his testimony before the Board, Mr Zhuang stated that the PSB members who
had visited his parents stated that they had followed Mr Zhuang to the church.
The Board did not respond to that explanation in its decision.
[16]
Mr Zhuang’s documentation showed that he worked
for his uncle from August 2007 to August 2008. The Board found this evidence to
contradict Mr Zhuang’s claim to have been in hiding from the PSB beginning in
June 2008. However, Mr Zhuang was actually living with his uncle at the time –
it is not implausible that he could have continued working while resident in
his uncle’s house.
[17]
The Board faulted Mr Zhuang for failing to file
a corroborating arrest warrant. He stated that the PSB had shown his parents a
warrant in 2009, but did not provide them with a copy. It is unclear how Mr
Zhuang or his parents could have obtained a copy of that document.
[18]
It is true that when Mr Zhuang arrived in the United States, he was asked why he had left China and said that he wanted to work in New York. However, he also stated that he was afraid of returning to China and would be harmed if he did so. The Board did not refer to the latter statements.
[19]
Mr Zhuang explained that he did not stay in the United States to pursue his asylum claim because he was told that if his claim failed he
would be arrested. In addition, he was told that his chances of success were
greater in Canada. The Board did not refer to his explanations.
[20]
Looking at these findings as a whole, I conclude
that the Board’s adverse credibility rulings were rendered without regard for the
evidence before it. Accordingly, its ultimate conclusion was unreasonable.
IV.
Conclusion and Disposition
[21]
The Board’s conclusion that Mr Zhuang’s refugee
claim was unsupported by credible evidence did not represent a defensible
outcome based on the facts and the law. It was unreasonable. Therefore, I must
allow this application for judicial review and order another panel of the Board
to reconsider his claim. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
Email this Content