Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1246

Date: 20050913

Docket: IMM-9688-04

Citation: 2005 FC 1246

BETWEEN:

YI MING LIU

YI ZHEN LIN

HAO LIU

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

HUGHES J.

[1]                The Applicants are citizens of the People's Republic of China, they arrived in Canada and claimed refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). That claim was heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division, and in a written decision dated August 27, 2004, denied. The Applicants seek judicial review of that decision.

[2]                At the outset of this decision the identities of the Applicants had not been established as it had been found by the Board that they provided non-genuine documentation in an attempt to establish their identity, and had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for having done so.

[3]                In support of the finding that the identity documents were not genuine, the Board relied on a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police citing a variety of reasons as to why, in their opinion, the Chinese Resident Identity cards for the Applicant adults issued in 1992 and 1993 were counterfeit. The Board also took note of other documents offered by the Applicants, a marriage license and birth certificates, and concluded that they were not credible having regard to the wide availability of forged documents in China.

[4]                The Applicants, in their Record before this Court provided an affidavit from a secretary for one of their solicitors in this matter, which states in paragraph 3:

On or around January 28, 2004 I was informed by the Royal Canada (sic) Mounted Police that the genuine specimen that was used as a basis for comparison to assess the authenticity of the Applicants Resident Identity Cards was issued in 1999.

That statement is hearsay, it fails to identify who made the statement and the reasons for believing it to be true. Even if true the evidence provides no reasoning as to why a 1999 genuine card could not be used to establish the genuineness of a card purportedly issued earlier.

[5]                While section 170 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that the Refugee Protection Division is not bound by technical rules of evidence and may receive such evidence as it considers credible or trustworthy, that provision does not extend to a Court conducting a judicial review of a decision of the Board. The Court is bound to receive evidence, other than that before the Board, in accordance with the usual procedures and laws governing evidence before a Court. Paragraph 3 of the solicitor's secretary's affidavit referred to above is hearsay and is insufficient so as to cast doubt on the RCMP's opinion as to genuineness of the documents which establish the Applicants' identity.

[6]                As stated by Justice Harrington in Farooqi v Canada (MCI), 2004 FC 1396 at paragraph 4:

If the Board was right in concluding that the applicant's identity had not been established it is not necessary to analyse the evidence any further.

Here the Board had ample basis for concluding that the Applicants had failed to establish their identity thus it was unnecessary for it to go further, even though it did. On this review, having concluded that the Board was right as to the identity issue, it is unnecessary for this Court to consider the other issues raised by the Applicants.

[7]                This application is rejected.    There is no question for certification. There no order as to costs.

"Roger T. Hughes"

Toronto, Ontario

September 13, 2005

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-9688-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           YI MING LIU

                                                            YI ZHEN LIN

                                                            HAO LIU

Applicants

                                                            and

                                                            THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

                                                            IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       SEPTEMBER 12, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:          HUGHES J.     

DATED:                                              SEPTEMBER 13, 2005

APPEARANCES:                                                                  

Kathy Clarke                                        For the Applicants

Ladan Shahrooz                                  For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                                              

Kathy Clarke

Barrister and Solicitor

Toronto, ON                                        For the Applicants

                                                                              John H Sims, Q.C

Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent