Docket: IMM-4028-16
Citation:
2017 FC 815
Toronto, Ontario, September 8, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SAI HUA LIN
(A.K.A. CHAI FA LIN)
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered
from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario on September 8, 2017)
I.
Overview
[1]
The answers of the Applicant before the Refugee
Protection Division [RPD] were considered to lack credibility on the very
inherent logic of the Applicant’s own narrative; the inconsistencies,
contradictions and implausibility of the narrative were clearly explained by
the RPD in its decision. As a trier of fact, the RPD is in a position due to
its specialized jurisdiction to consider responses and explanations as to the
inherent logic of an Applicant’s own narrative; that is, when it demonstrates
its reasons for such, which the RPD did, in its clear reasonable decision.
[2]
The Court refers to Warsame v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 596, [2016] FCJ No 618
at paras 24 to 32, in respect to cases, wherein the phrase, “clearly fraudulent” by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees is used to describe the situation and circumstances
of such cases in respect of “Manifestly Unfounded Applications
for Asylum”.
II.
Decision
[3]
The Applicant left China and claimed refugee
protection in Canada. The claim was based on a fear of persecution for being a
member of an underground Christian church.
[4]
The narrative of the Applicant explains that
subsequent to being arrested, she became ill; and, was then transferred to a
hospital from which she escaped.
[5]
Her escape, according to her narrative, took
place due to the security guards playing poker; and, thus, were inattentive to
her. Subsequently, with the assistance of a smuggler, she stated, she had left
China.
[6]
The RPD of the Immigration and Refugee Board
[IRB], refused the Applicant’s claim as it found her claim to be “manifestly unfounded”.
[7]
The RPD found that the responses and narrative
of the Applicant bore contradictions, inconsistencies and misleading statements
as to the Applicant’s Christian affiliation. Furthermore, the RPD considered
the deceit of the Applicant was such that documents submitted by the Applicant
were fabricated for the purpose of the claim, thus, recognizing that not only
was credibility at issue in respect of the claim, but the Applicant’s identity,
itself, was in question.
[8]
Notes were submitted by the Minister to indicate
that the Applicant, initially, attempted to come to Canada in March of 2016,
but was intercepted in Singapore due to an altered Taiwanese passport on which
she attempted to fly to Guangzhou and, then, to Vancouver. The Applicant did
continue her journey to Guangzhou with a genuine Chinese passport.
[9]
Before the Applicant was removed, she had said
that she attempted to seek employment in Canada. Although the Applicant
confirmed that she had gone to Singapore, she did not write of this travel in
her BOC form.
[10]
The written evidence attempting to corroborate
the claim of the Applicant was highly problematic due to the circumstances and
very brief delays under which they had been prepared; in addition, the witness
(originator of a key document), from whom the RPD had expressed a desire to
hear, had never appeared before the RPD.
[11]
The RPD’s reasons were, in and of themselves,
justifiable, transparent and intelligible as per the trilogy of judgments from
the Supreme Court of Canada: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190,
2008 SCC 9; also, Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta
Teachers’ Association, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654, 2011 SCC 61; and, Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 708, 2011 SCC 62.
[12]
Therefore, the IRB’s treatment of the evidence
in its decision was reasonable. The narrative as told by the Applicant and her
accompanying documents were understandably considered to lack credibility; and,
furthermore, the application was “manifestly unfounded”.
[13]
The IRB did not err in its analysis of the
narrative, nor of its accompanying documents. The application for judicial
review is therefore dismissed.
Email this Content