Date: 20100409
Docket: IMM-2667-09
Citation: 2010 FC 370
Ottawa, Ontario, April 9, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
YI
ZHI ZHENG
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
In 2007,
Mr. Yi Zhi Zheng sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming that he was pursued by the
Public Security Bureau (PSB) in China
for selling Falun Gong books. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
dismissed his claim because it did not believe his account of events. Mr. Zheng
argues that the Board’s findings amounted to speculation and that its
conclusion, therefore, was unreasonable. He asks me to order another panel of
the Board to reconsider his claim.
[2]
I can find
no basis for overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this
application for judicial review.
[3]
The only
issue is whether the Board’s finding that Mr. Zheng was not credible was
unreasonable.
II.
Analysis
(a) Factual background
[4]
According
to Mr. Zheng’s account, his parents operated a bookstore in a village in Min Hou County, China. Mr. Zheng worked
there part-time. A village leader, Mr. Chen, wanted to buy the store for his
son-in-law but Mr. Zheng’s parents were not willing to sell.
[5]
In July
2007, Mr. Zheng was working at the store alone. His parents were visiting his
aunt. Mr. Chen came into the store and then left. Shortly thereafter, the PSB
arrived and searched the store. They found some prohibited Falun Gong materials
and arrested Mr. Zheng.
[6]
Mr. Zheng
says the PSB detained him for 15 days. Naturally, they asked about the
whereabouts of his parents. He was released after his uncle paid a fine and a
bribe. He stayed with a colleague for a while. His parents and wife went into
hiding. Friends told him that PSB officers were looking for him, so he decided
to leave China. He has since learned that
Mr. Chen’s son-in-law has, indeed, taken over the store, confirming his
suspicions that Mr. Chen planted the Falun Gong materials. He also says that
the PSB continues to look for him and his parents.
(b) The Board’s decision
[7]
The
Board’s main concern was the apparent disinterest that the PSB showed in Mr. Zheng’s
parents, the owners of the bookstore, compared to their interest in him, a
casual employee. The PSB took him into custody for 15 days and interrogated
him. By contrast, the PSB did not seem very interested in the proprietors of
the store.
[8]
Mr. Zheng
asserted that his parents were in hiding with an aunt, a distant relative
unknown to the PSB. However, they were still in Min Hou County. The Board noted that there was
documentary evidence from which the PSB could probably ascertain the identity
of Mr. Zheng’s relatives. In addition, the Board referred to evidence about the
ability of Chinese authorities to locate people. Based on this evidence, the
Board concluded that the PSB “would have taken steps to find and question” Mr.
Zheng’s parents and “[c]learly the authorities would be able to find them”.
[9]
The Board
also questioned why his parents had not fled China, as Mr. Zheng had. He stated that it
would be hard for them to leave, in part because his father had a serious heart
condition. In fact, because he was in hiding, his father was unable to obtain
medical treatment for his ailment. The Board found it implausible that Mr.
Zheng’s father would not have seen a doctor since 2007.
[10]
In the
result, the Board found Mr. Zheng’s evidence to be neither credible nor
trustworthy and rejected his claim for refugee protection.
(c) Was the Board’s finding that
Mr. Zheng was not credible unreasonable?
[11]
Mr. Zheng
argues that the Board’s findings were not based on the evidence before it and,
therefore, that they should be regarded as no more than speculation. I
disagree.
[12]
According
to Mr. Zheng’s own evidence, the PSB would have been extremely motivated to
locate his parents. Yet, the PSB did not, apparently, rely on its available
resources to locate Mr. Zheng’s parents, who continue to reside in the same
county and with a relative, albeit a distant one.
[13]
The Board
relied on documentary evidence about the capacity of Chinese authorities to
locate citizens. It also referred to evidence that would probably have led the
PSB to Mr. Zheng’s parents, if they had been motivated to find them. The Board
concluded, reasonably in my view, that if Mr. Zheng’s account of events was
true, his parents would have been arrested too.
[14]
I cannot agree
with Mr. Zheng’s characterization of the Board’s conclusion as being no more
than speculation; nor can I find that there was no evidence supporting it.
Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
III.
Conclusion
and Disposition
[15]
I cannot
find that the Board’s decision was unreasonable. It was based on the evidence
before it and within the range of possible, defensible outcomes based on the
facts and the law (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, at para. 47). Accordingly, I must dismiss
this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of
general importance for certification, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content