Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 805

Date: 20030627

Docket: IMM-768-02

Citation: 2003 FCT 805

Ottawa, Ontario, this 27^th day of June, 2003

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY                          

BETWEEN:

                                                                TIAN WANG CHEN

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                              - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                 Mr. Chen was a fitter on the Panamanian ship M.V. Ever Forest. He joined the crew in Thailand in May 2000. He was from the Fujian province of China and spoke the dialect of that region. He says the parents of the ship's Captain and the Chief Engineer were originally from Fuzhou City and that he befriended them on that basis. This allowed him to fraternize far above his station on the ship, as he ranked 18^th out of a crew of 25.

[2]                 He claims that his friends from Fuzhou City introduced him to the Tian Dao religion of which he became an adherent in the fall of 2000. He was aware that the practice of Tian Dao was banned in China. Indeed, he said authorities in China became aware of his religious conversion right away. Eighteen days after his induction, he was informed by his wife that Chinese security officers had visited their home, conducted a search and inquired about their religious practices. A few weeks later, the shipped docked in Vancouver. Mr. Chen's wife again informed him that she had been visited by security officers. Mr. Chen left the ship, made his way to Toronto and made a refugee claim there.

[3]                 A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim on the grounds that it did not find his testimony to be credible. It concluded that Mr. Chen had simply decided to jump ship and find refuge in Canada by filing a bogus claim. He argues that the Board's conclusion was ill-founded and asks, by way of this application for judicial review, for a new hearing before a different panel.

I. Issue

[4]                 The issue in this case is whether the Board made serious errors in its assessment of Mr. Chen's testimony. He cites five sources of error:

A. Friendship with the Captain

[5]                 The Board found it unlikely that a lowly fitter could become a trusted friend of the ship's captain. It said: "Considering cultural norms of China and the hierarchy of personnel aboard a ship, it is highly unusual for a Master to single out and fraternize with a low ranking crew member." Mr. Chen's explanation for the contact was that he spoke the dialect of the region of China from which the captain's parents derived. The Board doubted this explanation because all of the crew, both Taiwanese and Chinese, spoke Mandarin.

[6]                 Mr. Chen argues that the Board made a capricious finding, unsupported by evidence, that his explanation was implausible. However, the Board did consider the evidence before it relating to the size of the crew, its national origins and the language capabilities of Mr. Chen, the captain and the rest of the crew. Additionally, it drew on its knowledge of "cultural norms of China" and the social dynamics on board a ship. The Board's expertise in these latter areas is not apparent and not deserving of much, if any, deference. Still, it was entitled to ask Mr. Chen about his friendship with the captain, to consider his explanation in light of the other evidence before it and to conclude, as it did, that the explanation was unconvincing.

B. Invitation to Tian Dao Ceremony

[7]                 The Board found it "not credible" that Mr. Chen would have been invited to a secret Tian Dao ceremony hosted by the captain before he had been formally admitted into the religion. Mr. Chen claims that the Board ignored his explanation for this. He testified that he was allowed to attend because he was already a worshipper of Guan Yin, an important figure in Tian Dao. He also said that sometimes the services are not secret. The transcript of the hearing reveals that the Board found his testimony to be confusing and contradictory. In addition, documentary evidence before the Board indicated that Tian Dao ceremonies are secret. I can find no error in the Board's conclusion on this subject.

C. The Captain was also "Dotting Master"

[8]                 Mr. Chen testified that the captain was also the "dotting master", a central figure in Tian Dao ceremonies. He failed to mention this fact in his Personal Information Form. The Board felt that this was a significant omission and did not accept Mr. Chen's explanation that he did not consider it necessary to mention it. Given Mr. Chen's explanation of the role of the captain in soliciting his involvement in the Tian Dao religion, it was open to the Board to conclude that the captain's status was an important fact and to draw an adverse inference from its omission from his written narrative.

D. Guan Yin's Birthday

[9]                 The Board questioned Mr. Chen about Guan Yin's birthday, an important date for followers of Tian Dao. The Board found his evidence to be muddled. It compared it to a Christian being confused about the date on which Christmas is celebrated. In this area, the Board was clearly relying on its own expertise about Tian Dao. It said that it had "heard scores of Tian Dao claims" and was "familiar with the dates pertaining to specific religious services."

[10]            The Board is recognized to have expertise in assessing refugee claims and is authorized by statute to apply its specialized knowledge: Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, s. 68(4).

[11]            The Board challenged Mr. Chen when he referred to September 19^th as being Guan Yin's birthday. The presiding member suggested that her birthday was actually in February. Mr. Chen then said that she was indeed born on February 19^th, became a nun on June 19^th and became a God on September 19^th. His explanation for his seemingly confused testimony was that the Mandarin character for birthday is not specific to the date of birth - it refers to all first dates, including the three mentioned. The Board did not find that explanation satisfactory. Considering the evidence before it and the deference owed to the Board in this area, I cannot find any error in its decision to draw an adverse inference from Mr. Chen's testimony on this subject.

E. The Captain's Written Statement

[12]            The captain filed a written report after Mr. Chen deserted the ship. In it, he says that, to the best of his knowledge, Mr. Chen did not have any problems on board or in China. By contrast, Mr. Chen's written narrative states that the captain was informed of the visits by security officers to the Chen's home and of the fact that the chief navigator of the ship had warned him that he might have trouble when he returned to China. The Board asked Mr. Chen about the discrepancy. His explanation, while not entirely clear from the transcript, seemed to be that the captain may not have wanted to mention any troubles because they might reflect badly on him. The Board concluded that the captain's statement contradicted Mr. Chen's entire story.

[13]            Any discussion of the captain's motives would be speculative. However, the fact is that the Board had before it evidence that contradicted the version of events given by Mr. Chen. The Board was entitled to consider that evidence and draw from it such inferences as it could reasonably bear. It was also entitled to conclude that Mr. Chen's explanation was unconvincing. I cannot find any error on the Board's part.

II. Conclusion

[14]            The Board's reasons for doubting Mr. Chen's credibility were clear and explained adequately. Having found no serious error in the Board's consideration of the evidence before it, this application for judicial review must be dismissed. No question of general importance was proposed for certification and none is stated.

                                                                        JUDGMENT

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question of general importance is stated.

                                                                                                                                      "James W. O'Reilly"        

                                                                                                                                                          J.F.C.C.                        

                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             IMM-768-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          

                                                                TIAN WANG CHEN

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                              - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       JUNE 10,2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT BY :                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE O'REILLY

DATED:                                                JUNE 27, 2003

APPEARANCES BY:

MS.CARLA STURDY                         FOR THE APPLICANT

MS.CLAIRE LE RICHE                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MS.CARLA STURDY

LEWIS 7 ASSOCIATES

290 GERRARD STREET EAST

TORONTO, ONTARIO M5A 2G4    FOR THE APPLICANT

MORRIS ROSENBERG

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA                   FOR THE RESPONDENT