Date: 20101022
Docket: IMM-538-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1033
Ottawa, Ontario, October 22, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
WANG
YING
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Ms. Wang Ying arrived in Canada from China in 2008. She claimed refugee protection on grounds of religious
persecution, stating that she was sought by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) in
China because of her membership
in an underground Christian church.
[2]
A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
dismissed her claim for two reasons: First, Ms. Ying had been unable to
establish her identity to the Board’s satisfaction. Second, the Board did not
believe her testimony regarding her experiences in China.
[3]
Ms. Ying argues that the Board erred in
dismissing her evidence of identity by failing to consider documentary evidence
consistent with her testimony. Ms. Ying also submits that the Board
unreasonably concluded that her claim of religious persecution was not
supported by credible evidence.
[4]
I am satisfied that the Board’s conclusion
regarding the lack of evidence of Ms. Ying’s identity was reasonable.
Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. It is
unnecessary to consider Ms. Ying’s second argument.
[5]
The sole issue, therefore, is whether the
Board’s conclusion that Ms. Ying had not established her identity was
reasonable.
II.
Was the Board’s Conclusion Regarding Ms. Ying’s
Identity Reasonable?
[6]
The Board must consider whether a refugee
claimant has proved his or her identity with acceptable documentation and, if
not, whether the claimant has a reasonable explanation for its absence, or has
taken reasonable steps to acquire that evidence (Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 s. 106; Immigration
and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, Rule 7).
[7]
Ms. Ying did not possess a Resident Identity
Card (RIC) which all Chinese citizens over the age of 16 to 18 must have. Ms.
Ying stated that the PSB seized her RIC when it searched her home. At the same
time, she testified that she always carried her RIC with her. Later, she stated
she only carried it when she went out of town. The Board drew an adverse
inference from her conflicting statements.
[8]
Ms. Ying also testified that Chinese citizens
were given new RICs after each census. By contrast, documentary evidence
suggested that RICs are issued at age 16, when a citizen loses a card, or when the
card has expired. Ms. Ying also seemed unsure of the information contained on
an RIC.
[9]
The Board also found that Ms. Ying had not been
issued a house register (hukou). She did not seem to know what a hukou looks
like, what information is contained in it, or when it is issued.
[10]
Ms. Ying argues that the Board failed to
consider documentary evidence suggesting that Chinese citizens do not have to
carry their RICs on their person at all times. If the PSB asks a person to
present it, he or she may return home to retrieve it. In addition, documentary
evidence states that when the PSB seizes an RIC, it does not always provide the
person with a receipt for it.
[11]
In my view, the documentary evidence does not
contradict any of the Board’s findings on credibility. The Board drew an
adverse inference from Ms. Ying’s contradictory testimony about whether she
carried her RIC on her person. The fact that she may not have been legally
obliged to do so did not figure in the Board’s finding. In addition, the
question whether Ms. Ying possessed a receipt for her allegedly seized RIC was
not addressed by the Board. The documentary evidence she cites on that point is
irrelevant to the Board’s conclusion.
[12]
In addition, of course, Ms. Ying’s assertions do
not affect the Board’s other findings that led to its overall conclusion that
she had not established her identity with acceptable documentation, and had not
provided a reasonable explanation for having failed to do so. The Board’s
conclusion was reasonable in light of the evidence, and the absence of
evidence, before it.
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[13]
Given Ms. Ying’s testimony and the absence of
documentary evidence, the Board’s conclusion that her identity had not been
established was reasonable. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance for me to certify, 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”
Annex
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27
Credibility
106. The Refugee
Protection Division must take into account, with respect to the credibility
of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation
establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable
explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to
obtain the documentation.
Refugee
Protection Division Rules
(SOR/2002-228)
Documents
Establishing Identity and Other Elements of the Claim
Documents
establishing identity and other elements of the claim
7. The claimant must provide acceptable
documents establishing identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant
who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they were not
provided and what steps were taken to obtain them.
|
Loi
sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, LC 2001, ch 27
Crédibilité
106. La Section
de la protection des réfugiés prend en compte, s’agissant de crédibilité, le
fait que, n’étant pas muni de papiers d’identité acceptables, le demandeur ne
peut raisonnablement en justifier la raison et n’a pas pris les mesures
voulues pour s’en procurer.
Règles
de la Section de la protection des réfugiés (DORS/2002-228)
Documents
d’identité et autres éléments de la demande d’asile
Documents
d’identité et autres éléments de la demande
7. Le demandeur d’asile transmet à la
Section des documents acceptables pour établir son identité et les autres
éléments de sa demande. S’il ne peut le faire, il en donne la raison et
indique quelles mesures il a prises pour s’en procurer.
|
Email this Content