Date: 20061109
Docket: IMM-2053-06
Citation: 2006 FC 1361
Vancouver, British Columbia, November 9,
2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
HUI
LIN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Hui
Lin is a citizen of China, who sought refugee protection in Canada based upon
his purported involvement with the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The Refugee
Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected his claim on
the basis that his story was not credible.
[2]
Mr.
Lin now seeks judicial review of that decision, asserting that many of the
Board’s credibility and plausibility findings were patently unreasonable.
[3]
For
the reasons that follow, I am of the view that when the Board’s decision is
read fairly, as a whole, it is reasonable, and should not be disturbed.
How Mr. Lin Learned
About Falun Gong
[4]
The
central reason why the Board found that Mr. Lin’s claim to be a practitioner of
Falun Gong lacked credibility related to his explanation of how it was that he
came to be involved in Falun Gong.
[5]
Mr.
Lin testified that in the summer of 2001, he met an individual named Quiang
Chen at a disco. The two men hit it off immediately, and saw each other
socially a few times over the next ten days or so.
[6]
Mr.
Lin says that he then visited Mr. Chen at his house. As he arrived, Mr. Lin
looked through a window in Mr. Chen’s house, where he could see Mr. Chen doing
some type of exercise. When Mr. Lin asked Mr. Chen about this, Mr. Chen told
him that he was performing a Falun Gong exercise. Mr. Chen then loaned Mr. Lin
a copy of the Zhuan Falun book to review.
[7]
The
Board found this story to be completely incredible for a number of reasons.
Firstly, given the situation in China at the time, the Board
thought it implausible that Mr. Chen would be performing a Falun Gong exercise
in front of a window, with the curtains only partially drawn.
[8]
Moreover,
the Board found it improbable that Mr. Chen would tell a casual acquaintance
about his involvement with the Falun Gong movement, at a time that the Chinese
government was coming down very harshly on Falun Gong practitioners.
[9]
Similarly,
the Board found it improbable that Mr. Chen would give a copy of a banned book
to his new friend, the first time that Mr. Lin visited Mr. Chen’s home.
[10]
I
see nothing unreasonable about any of these findings. A review of the country
condition information discloses that while Falun Gong had been banned in China
for some time, after several alleged Falun Gong supporters immolated themselves
in Tiananmen
Square
in January of 2001, the Chinese government significantly stepped up its efforts
to quell support for the movement. To this end, the government ordered the
detention of Falun Gong practitioners.
[11]
Moreover,
the country condition information reveals that these efforts continued
throughout 2001, with the result that by early 2002, the Chinese authorities
had succeeded in significantly reducing the number of Falun Gong supporters,
with those still practicing Falun Gong having been driven underground.
[12]
It
is against this backdrop that one has to consider Mr. Lin’s story that, at the
height of the government crackdown, a casual acquaintance practiced Falun Gong
exercises in front of a window, at a time that he was expecting company.
[13]
Moreover,
one has to consider Mr. Lin’s claim that Mr. Chen purportedly admitted his
involvement in an illegal organization to someone that he barely knew.
[14]
Finally,
at a time when the dissemination of Falun Gong material was punishable by
death, Mr. Lin would have us believe that Mr. Chen gave a new friend a copy of
a banned book.
[15]
In
my view, the Board’s finding that none of this was plausible was entirely
reasonable.
Mr. Lin’s Behaviour
after Starting to Practice Falun Gong
[16]
The
Board also found that Mr. Lin’s description of his behaviour after he began
practicing Falun Gong to be implausible. In this regard, the Board found it
implausible that Mr. Lin would practice Falun Gong at Mr. Chen’s home, where
Mr. Chen lived with his wife and children.
[17]
Given
the evidence before the Board with respect to the efforts of the Chinese
government at this time to have the family members of Falun Gong supporters
turn in their relatives, I find that there is nothing unreasonable about the
Board’s finding in this regard.
The Sale of Falun
Gong Books at the Store
[18]
Mr.
Lin testified that he and Mr. Chen ultimately went into business together,
opening a book store. According to Mr. Lin, the store maintained a small stock
of Falun Gong books and would sell these books to Falun Gong practitioners.
[19]
Given
Mr. Lin’s testimony as to the care that he took to ensure that his personal
copy of the Zhuan Falun was kept under lock and key in his home, the
Board found Mr. Lin’s seemingly casual attitude regarding the sale of Falun
Gong books at the store to be surprising. Having reviewed Mr. Lin’s evidence on
this point, I am satisfied that this finding was one that was reasonably open
to the Board.
Other Credibility and
Plausibility Findings
[20]
Mr.
Lin’s counsel took the Court through a painstaking analysis of the Board’s
decision, identifying a number of other findings that she says were
unreasonable.
[21]
I
have considered counsel’s arguments on each of these points. I agree that in
some instances, the Board was clearly overreaching, and was looking for
implausibilities where none really existed. However, when the decision is read
fairly, as a whole, it is quite clear that the Board’s decision turned on the
threshold finding that Mr. Lin’s explanation of how it was that he came to be
involved in Falun Gong lacked credibility – a finding that I have found to be
unassailable.
Failure to Consider
Documentary Evidence
[22]
Finally,
Mr. Lin asserts that the Board erred in failing to refer to key documentary
evidence. This evidence consists of two letters, one of which was from Mr.
Lin’s father in China, claiming that representatives of the Public
Security Bureau had recently attended at Mr. Lin’s father’s home, looking for
Mr. Lin.
[23]
The
second letter was from a Falun Gong practitioner in Vancouver, confirming
that Mr. Lin had been practicing Falun Gong at Queen Elizabeth Park since March
of 2005.
[24]
It
is well established that, as a general rule, the Board does not have to
specifically refer to every piece of evidence, and will be presumed to have
considered all of the evidence before it in coming to its decision: see Woolaston
v. Canada (Minister of Manpower and Immigration), [1973] S.C.R. 102 and Hassan
v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 946,
147 N.R. 317.
[25]
That
said, there will be cases where the evidence not referred to is of such central
importance to the issues at hand that the failure of the Board to make specific
reference to the evidence in question may lead to the inference that the
evidence has been ignored: see, for example, Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425, 157
F.T.R. 35 at ¶ 14 – 17.
[26]
Insofar
as the letter from the Canadian Falun Gong follower is concerned, I am not
persuaded that this evidence was of such probative value that the failure of
the Board to specifically refer to it leads to the inference that the evidence
was overlooked. The question for the Board was whether Mr. Lin faced a risk of
persecution in China by reason of his involvement with Falun Gong while
he was in that country. This letter sheds no light on that question.
[27]
It
is also noteworthy that while the letter claims that Mr. Lin had been
practicing Falun Gong at Queen Elizabeth Park, Mr. Lin himself testified before
the Board that he practices Falun Gong in “Keary” Park in Vancouver.
[28]
The
letter purportedly sent by Mr. Lin’s father is more problematic, in that it
does relate to the Public Security Bureau’s alleged ongoing interest in Mr.
Lin. It would certainly have been preferable had the Board specifically
referred to this letter in its decision.
[29]
That
said, a review of the letter, its timing, and its source, all lead to the
inference that it was sent in an effort to shore up Mr. Lin’s refugee claim. As
such, it was of such limited probative value that the failure of the Board to
make specific reference to it in the decision does not amount to a reviewable
error.
Conclusion
[30]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[31]
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”
Email this Content