Date: 19981217
Docket: IMM-534-98
BETWEEN:
TIAN RONG WANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
WETSTON J.
[1] The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, brings this application for judicial review of the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the Board"). The Board rejected the applicant's claim on the basis of its finding that the claimant lacked credibility. Applicant's counsel, Ms. Silcoff, advanced, in a highly thorough and efficient manner a number of submissions regarding the Board's findings on credibility. Unfortunately, I am unable accept that the Board made any error in this regard. In my opinion, the Board's finding that the applicant lacked credibility was amply supported by inconsistencies between his testimony and his PIF, his vagueness with respect to his alleged detention, the implausibility of his fear of the PSB and the fact that the summons did not indicate that it was for his escape, the fact that he described himself as a fugitive but stayed in China for almost two years after his detention, and certain conflicts between his testimony with respect to the PSB's lack of knowledge of his whereabouts and the evidence of his wife's letter containing his full return address. I have considered these arguments thoroughly and cannot find any basis to interfere with the Board's decision.
[2] The applicant also contended that there was a breach of fairness in this case. It is contended that since the Refugee Division did not accept the applicant's testimony that his departure in February 1996, a short time after his cousin in Canada had obtained refugee status, was just a "coincidence", the Refugee Division was unfair in denying him the opportunity by not adjourning to permit his cousin to testify on his behalf.
[3] In essence, the applicant submits that the Board erred by speculating that after his cousin gained refugee status in Canada, this event caused the applicant to leave China. Moreover, it was contended that the Board erred in that his cousin did not provide the applicant with a convenient story to base his refugee claim on.
[4] The Board decided not to hear the cousin's testimony because it had the cousin's personal information form on file and the sole purpose of the cousin's testimony was to identify the applicant. The Board decided to accept his identity and therefore determined it was unnecessary to call the cousin.
[5] The applicant must be provided a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. However, the right to call further evidence is not absolute. While it might have been preferable for the Board to adjourn to hear the evidence of the cousin, I am of the opinion that the Board did not err in not doing so. In Singh v. Canada (M.E.I.) [1994] F.C.J. 1367 (T.D.), MacKay J. found that the Board was justified in refusing to hear a witness who could have supported the testimony of the applicant. However, MacKay J. found that the witness would not have explained the absence of critical aspects of the applicant's story from his PIF which led the Board to doubt his credibility.
[6] In Parnin v. Canada (M.C.I.) [1995] F.C.J. 777 (T.D.), the Court found that the Board had erred in failing to allow the applicant to adduce the testimony of a witness. In that case, it was found that the Board had determined that the applicant was not credible on the very issue on which the proposed witness was to testify by way of corroboration. This is not the situation in this case. The Board herein specifically considered the cousin's PIF and determined that the issue on which he could testify, i.e., identity was not in issue. Moreover, the Refugee Division's disbelief of the applicant's testimony that his cousin's status in Canada had nothing to do with his departure from China was not central to the Refugee Division's credibility finding. Rather, it was but one of many reasons for the adverse credibility finding.
[7] Accordingly, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed. There shall be no question for certification.
"Howard I. Wetston"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
December 17, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-534-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: TIAN RONG WANG
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: WETSTON J.
DATED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1998
APPEARANCES: Ms. Maureen Silcoff
For the Applicant
Ms. Diane Dagenais
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lewis & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
175 Harbord Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1H3
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981217
Docket: IMM-534-98
Between:
TIAN RONG WANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content