Date: 20061011
Docket: IMM-7763-05
Citation: 2006 FC 1210
Vancouver, British Columbia, October
11, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
MEI YING SHI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mei
Ying Shi claims to fear persecution in China because her
son is allegedly a Falun Gong practitioner wanted by the Chinese Public
Security Bureau. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board rejected her claim finding that her evidence was not credible and that
she had not established that the PSB had any interest in her son. Moreover, the
Board also found that the country condition information before it did not
demonstrate that family members of Falun Gong followers were themselves at risk
of persecution in China.
[2]
The
applicant now seeks judicial review of this decision asserting that the Board
erred by attributing insufficient weight to the fact that she is uneducated and
unsophisticated, in assessing her testimony. The applicant says that the Board also
erred in failing to give the appropriate weight to documentary evidence
emanating from Falun Gong sources indicating that family members of Falun Gong
practitioners do indeed face a risk of persecution in China.
[3]
For
the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Board did not commit a
reviewable error in its assessment of the applicant’s evidence. As a
consequence, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
I. Analysis
[4]
The
principal focus of the applicant’s attack on the Board’s credibility finding is
the alleged failure of the Board to properly take into account her lack of
education and sophistication. In support of this assertion, the applicant
points to the fact that she is a 63 year-old widow, with absolutely no formal
education, who had spent her life living in a Chinese village working on a
farm.
[5]
However,
a review of the Board’s decision demonstrates that the Board member was acutely
aware of the vulnerabilities of the applicant and took these into account in
her assessment of the evidence. In this regard, it should be noted that the
analysis portion of the decision begins with the following statement by the
Board member:
The panel is cognizant of the
difficulties faced by the claimant in establishing her claim, including
cultural factors, the milieu of the hearing room and the stress inherent in
responding to oral questions. The claimant is uneducated and unsophisticated.
[6]
In
light of this, there is simply no basis on which to find that the member was
not sufficiently alert, alive and sensitive to the applicant’s vulnerabilities
in assessing her evidence.
[7]
Moreover,
the Board found that the applicant’s claim that her son was being sought by the
PSB, lacked credibility. This finding was based on a number of inconsistencies
in the applicant’s evidence on points that related to central aspects of her
claim. These included inconsistent information as to when the applicant’s son
began practicing Falun Gong, and when it was that he called her to tell her
that he was going into hiding.
[8]
Similarly,
the applicant’s evidence as to who had told her that family members of Falun
Gong supporters were being targeted by the PSB was not consistent, nor was her
evidence as to when this discussion allegedly took place.
[9]
The
Board also found it implausible that at no time in the 14 months that had
passed between the time that her son allegedly called her to tell her that he
was going into hiding and the hearing did the applicant make any inquiries as
to the well-being of her son and his family.
[10]
In
a similar vein, the Board found it implausible that the applicant had not made
any attempt to ascertain the condition of the family home, which had supposedly
been sealed up by the authorities. In my view, there was a reasonable basis in
the record for the Board’s implausibility findings.
[11]
Given
that the Board did not believe the applicant’s claim that her son was wanted by
the PSB because of his involvement with Falun Gong, it is unnecessary to
consider whether the Board erred in its assessment of the risk posed to family
members of Falun Gong. Similarly, the issue of the standard of proof required
to establish the existence of such also does not arise.
II. Conclusion
[12]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
III. Certification
[13]
Neither
party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for
judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question
of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7763-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: MEI
YING SHI v.MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 5, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: MACTAVISH J.
DATED: October 11, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Shelly Levine FOR
APPLICANT
Asha Gafar FOR
RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Levine
Associates FOR
APPLICANT
Toronto, ON
John H. Sims,
Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada