Yang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 971

Date: 20030812

Docket: IMM-4770-02

Citation: 2003 FC 971

Ottawa, Ontario, this 12^th day of August, 2003

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY                          

BETWEEN:

                                                                        LIRU YANG

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                              - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                 Liru Yang claims refugee status in Canada on the grounds that she fears persecution if she returns to China. She says that she follows Falun Gong, a practice that the government of China banned in 1999. She states that she came to Vancouver in 2001 to attend a conference and, while here, her mother called from China to say that security officers had arrested some members of her Falun Gong group and had come looking for her.

[2]                 A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Ms. Yang's claim because it disbelieved her testimony. It concluded that she had simply chosen "a convenient way to become a Canadian resident by claiming refugee status". It did not believe that she was a follower of Falun Gong in China or that security officials were really pursuing her.

[3]                 Ms. Yang has one complaint about the Board's decision: that it failed to consider the possibility that she might be persecuted if she returns to China because of her Falun Gong activities in Canada. She argues that, by this omission, the Board made a serious error and that she is entitled to a new hearing before a different panel.

[4]                 The Board had scant evidence before it of Ms. Yang's activities in Canada. She made passing reference in her written narrative to practising Falun Gong here. In her oral testimony, she identified a park in North Toronto where she practised, and mentioned attending a celebration of the 10^th anniversary of Falun Gong's founding. Based on this evidence, should the Board have specifically considered whether Mr. Yang's activities here might result in persecution in China? In the circumstances of this case, the answer is no.

[5]                 Reading its reasons as a whole, I find that the Board clearly rejected all of Ms. Yang's story. It concluded that she "came to Canada with an ulterior motive": to make a false refugee claim. Near the end of the hearing, counsel for Ms. Yang attempted to question her further on her Canadian Falun Gong activities, at which point the Boad made clear that it was not interested because any evidence she gave could easily be fabricated. Obviously, Ms. Yang's credibility was in tatters at that point.

[6]                 In its reasons, the Board carefully outlined its grounds for disbelieving all of Ms. Yang's claim, including her supposed membership in Falun Gong. On this basis, I find that this case differs from those where the Board does not make such a sweeping credibility assessment: see, for example, Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), _2002 FCT 480, [2002] F.C.J. No. 647. In Chen, the Board made no finding about the applicant's membership in Falun Gong. Justice O'Keefe, rightly, found that the Board had failed to consider the risk that the Chinese government might mistreat Ms. Chen when she returned to China, even though the Board did not believe that she had actually been persecuted there. Here, by contrast, the Board did not believe that the applicant was even a member of Falun Gong in China. It characterized the entire claim as a sham. I cannot conclude that the Board failed to address any issue of significance.

[7]                 Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel did not propose any question of general importance for me to certify, 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"      

                                                                                                                                                               Judge                     

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             IMM-4770-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          

                                                                        LIRU YANG

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                              - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO

DATE OF HEARING:                       WEDNESDAY JULY 30, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

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

DATED:                                                TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Hart Kaminker                                                                         FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Martin Anderson                                                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mr. Hart A. Kaminker

Kranc & Associates

Barrister and Solicitor

425 University Avenue, Suite 500

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T6                                                           FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Martin Anderson

Department of Justice

130 King Street West

Suite 3400, Box 36

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6                                                          FOR THE RESPONDENT