Docket: IMM-8500-14
Citation:
2015 FC 969
Ottawa, Ontario, August 14, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HONG CHEN
|
|
BAIYE CAO
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicants are a mother, Hong Chen, and her
son, Baiye Cao. They are citizens of China. Ms. Chen claimed to be a
practitioner of Falun Gong and wanted by the Public Security Bureau [PSB] in
China. She was found by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] not to be
credible. It concluded that she “was not a Falun Gong
practitioner in China.”
[2]
Hong Chen further asserted that she practiced
Falun Gong in Canada. The RPD found that while she was knowledgeable of Falun
Gong, “she has only gotten involved in Falun Gong in
Canada to advance a fraudulent refugee claim.”
[3]
In my view, there are two issues to be
addressed: First, whether the RPD’s decision that Hong Chen was not a Falun
Gong practitioner in China was reasonable and second, whether the RPD erred in
failing to properly assess her sur place claim.
[4]
I find nothing unreasonable about the RPD’s view
that Hong Chen was not a Falun Gong practitioner in China. That assessment was
made based on her testimony; conflicts and inconsistencies in her evidence; and
discrepancies between her testimony and known facts. In particular, it was
noted that she did not right away state in her oral testimony that her Falun
Gong instructor was sentenced to four years imprisonment, even though it was in
her amended PIF narrative. The RPD also noted that the prison sentence was not
mentioned in the original PIF, even though she alleged she knew about the
sentence before submitting it. Moreover, there was no corroborative evidence
that the PSB is looking for her, and her description of the conduct of the PSB
differed from and was inconsistent with its reputation for being a “ruthless and fearsome” police force. Lastly, it
noted a lack of evidence about the alleged arrests of her fellow practitioners.
[5]
As to the sur place claim, the applicants
submit that the facts here are similar to those in Chen v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 749 [Chen]. In Chen,
the Court found the RPD’s analysis to be illogical. The RPD in Chen
made the following analysis: (i) the applicant was not a Falun Gong practitioner in China; (ii) the applicant became a Falun Gong
practitioner in Canada only to bolster her refugee claim; (iii) because the
applicant was not a Falun Gong practitioner in China, the PSB are not seeking
to arrest her; (iv) because the claimant is not a genuine Falun Gong
practitioner in Canada, the claimant can safely return to China.
[6]
The crux of the court’s finding in Chen
is that “[t]here is no real assessment by the Board of
whether the Applicant has become a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada.
The bald assertion that she isn’t genuine because she wasn’t a genuine
practitioner in China does not make logical sense and simply ignores the
guiding jurisprudence of this Court on point.”
[7]
Here, as in Jiang v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1067 [Jiang], the RPD does examine
the evidence advanced to support her allegation that even if she was not an
adherent of Falun Gong in China, she has become one in Canada, and the RPD
rejects that submission after examining the evidence offered to support it;
namely, her testimony, a few pictures, and unsworn statements of a few
practitioners.
[8]
As was observed in Jiang, the RPD is
entitled to assess the genuineness of a claimant’s assertion that she has
become an adherent in Canada “in light of the
credibility concerns relating to the original authenticity of a claim.” Where
there is an adverse credibility finding, the evidence of a claimant is entitled
to little weight. Here the RPD noted that there was no evidence that Chen Hong
had taken a leadership role in Falun Gong in Canada, no sworn evidence other
than her own, and nothing to suggest that she had become involved in Falun Gong
through personal belief rather than as a means to support her refugee claim. I
am unable to find that its decision was unreasonable given the evidence before
it and its finding that she had advanced a fraudulent claim based on being a
practitioner of Falun Gong in China.
[9]
For these reasons, the application must be dismissed.
No question for certification was proposed and there is none on these facts.
Email this Content