Date: 20020301
Docket: IMM-6589-00
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 211
Between:
LE CHENG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision rendered on November 27, 2000 by the Refugee Division, ruling that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant, a Chinese citizen from the province of Fujian, alleges that he has a reasonable fear of persecution in that country because of his political opinions; he says he is opposed to the family planning policy (he had married illegally) and has illegally left his country.
[3] The Refugee Division determined that the applicant lacks credibility and accordingly has failed to establish his fear of persecution in terms of both his supposed illegal marriage and his illegal departure from China.
[4] The applicant argues, first, in his written memorandum, that the Refugee Division should have taken into account the fact that the interpreter at the hearing spoke only Mandarin and not his own dialect, Fuzhou. He alleges that he had difficulty understanding the interpreter. I must agree with the respondent that the applicant, who never made any objection in this regard at the hearing, and did not cite any errors of translation by the interpreter as having any impact on the panel's negative decision, has not managed to establish the existence of potential prejudice.
[5] Moreover, in so far as the Refugee Division's decision is based on the applicant's lack of credibility, I do not intend to intervene further. Without necessarily endorsing in full the language of the decision at issue, it is my view, after reviewing the record, that this specialized tribunal could reasonably conclude as it did (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). The applicant has not persuaded me that the decision is based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7).
[6] Finally, in so far as the applicant bases his claim on the risk of imprisonment for violating Chinese laws that prohibit exit from the country, I do not think the Refugee Division erred in finding that the law of general application in question, and the risk of imprisonment of up to five years, amounted to persecution. My colleague Mr. Justice Noël considered a similar question in
relation to the Cuban laws, in De Corcho Herrera v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 70 F.T.R. 253, and concluded:
It is stated that the Valentin decision did not deal with the excessive punishment alleged here and, in the alternative, that the Valentin decision cannot apply to the Cuban situation where the exit laws are said to be inherently political. For the reasons which I expressed in Castaneda v. M.E.I., dated October 19, 1993 unreported, File No. A-805-92, I do not believe that the punishment for illegal exit under Cuban law is any more excessive than that which was under consideration in Valentin nor that the exit legislation in Cuba is any more inherently political than the Czechoslovakian law which was then before the Court of Appeal.
(See also the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal in Valentin v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1991] 3 F.C. 390 and Sagharichi v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 182 N.R. 398).
[7] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 1, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: IMM-6589-00
STYLE: LE CHENG v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: March 1, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Diane N. Doray FOR THE APPLICANT
Isabelle Brochu FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Diane N. Doray FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content