Docket: IMM-5429-13
Citation:
2015 FC 16
Ottawa, Ontario, January 7, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SHUZHEN ZHENG
(A.K.A SHU ZHEN ZHENG)
SHUYI ZHENG
SULING LIANG
(A.K.A. SU LING LIANG)
WEIFENG ZHENG
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicant family challenges the decision of
the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissing
their claims for protection. Shuzhen Zheng, his wife Suling Liang, and their children
Shuyi Zheng and Weifing Zheng, are citizens of the People’s Republic of China from Guangdong Province. The applicants claim to fear persecution in China because of their
Christian faith. Suling Liang also fears persecution on account of mental
illness.
[2]
The Board Member asked the applicants somewhat detailed
questions about Christianity and concluded, based on their evidence that although
they professed to regularly read the Bible and attend church in Canada, that they were not Christians as claimed:
It appears that the claimants have learned a
few facts about the Christian faith, but when asked to explain simple aspects
of that faith, they are unable to do so. While it is true that there are many
Christians, who have limited knowledge of their faith and the bible, the panel
must consider of the claimants’ knowledge is reasonable in the context of their
alleged religious profile. Given the principal claimant’s devotion to reading
the bible, and his commitment to attending church and bible study classes, it
is reasonable to expect a high level of knowledge and understanding of the
Christian faith. However, the principal claimant’s knowledge was limited. The
knowledge that the claimant does possess could easily have been acquired while
he has been in Canada. The panel draws a negative inference from the
claimant’s limited knowledge given his alleged religious profile.
The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities,
and in the context of findings noted above, that the claimants joined a
Christian church in Canada only for the purpose of supporting a fraudulent
refugee claim. In the context as noted above, and on the basis of the totality
of evidence as disclosed and in the context of the claimant’s knowledge of
Christianity, the panel finds that the claimants are not genuine practicing
Christians, not would they be perceived to be in China.
[3]
The applicants submit that this court has held
that determining whether one is a member of a particular religion is a low bar
that does not require an in depth analysis into sincerity or a claimant’s
ability to demonstrate religious knowledge: See Huang v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] FC 1002, and Lin v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FC 288. They
argue that the Board Member placed an unreasonably high burden on them to prove
that they were genuine Christians. They point out that they were able to
answer basic questions about their faith, and submitted certificates of Baptism
and a letter from their Reverend.
[4]
In my view, it is not appropriate for a Board
Member to simply accept a claimant’s assertion of his or her religious faith without
properly testing it. Here, the Board Member asked the claimants about their
religious observations and correctly noted that the principal claimant
testified that he routinely read the Bible, attended church weekly, and also
attended Bible study. Given that background, and the period of time he claimed
to have been a Christian, the Board’s assessment that one would have expected him
to have a high level of knowledge and understanding of Christianity is not unreasonable.
Having reviewed the transcript of the evidence of the applicants, their
knowledge of their professed faith can best be described as cursory. It is not
what one would expect given their evidence of their devotion to the faith. As
such, the Member’s finding cannot be said to be unreasonable.
[5]
In any event, the Member’s finding that they
would be free to practice Christianity in Guangdong Province was based a
thorough analysis of the objective evidence before him. He addresses each
document and indicates why it is or is not persuasive. While one may disagree
with the analysis, the conclusion and reasoning is within the realm of
reasonableness being justified, transparent and intelligible.
[6]
The final area of concern is the manner in which
the Board dealt with the mental illness of Suling Liang. The Board Member
concluded that she “is expected to make a full recovery”
based on a statement made by her doctor that “[s]he may
need longer term treatment before her symptoms completely remit” which,
the decision states, was agreed to by counsel to be a reasonable conclusion.
The applicants submit that counsel offered no such agreement, and further that
the finding is unreasonable when considered in light of a second letter from a
different doctor, which states:
She has started to improve but still does not
appreciate that her thinking and behaviour are due to an illness. Since she
remains paranoid, I do not believe that she can, at this time, appreciate the
nature of the proceedings involved in her refugee claim. Her judgment is
influenced by psychotic beliefs so she cannot properly instruct counsel not, as
her physician, would I allow her to testify at a hearing in such a condition.
I hope this answers any questions you may have.
I expect this patient to improve with proper treatment. At that time
she will likely be capable of doing all of the above. [emphasis added.]
[7]
The opinion relied upon by the Member was the
most current, being written 17 months after the letter relied on by the
applicants. It is alleged that there is an issue with the Member’s
characterization of the letter as stating that she will achieve “full recovery.” While I agree that there is nothing in
the record that supports the Member’s statement that counsel agreed with that
interpretation, the letter itself does strongly support that characterization
even absent agreement. Accordingly, it cannot be said to be an unreasonable
interpretation of the evidence.
[8]
For these reasons, the application will be
dismissed. No question was proposed for certification.
Email this Content