Date: 20101108
Docket: IMM-647-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1102
Ottawa, Ontario, November 8, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
MIN
WU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr. Min Wu maintains that he fled China after the underground Christian
church he was attending was raided by the Public Security Bureau (PSB). He says
that he paid a smuggler to escort him out of China because he was afraid of being arrested by the PSB for practising
his Christian faith.
[2]
When he arrived in Canada, Mr. Wu claimed refugee protection. A panel of the Immigration and
Refugee Board dismissed his claim on three independent grounds: (1) it did not
believe Mr. Wu’s account of his experiences at the underground church and his
travel to Canada; (2) it did not accept that Mr. Wu was, as he claimed, a
devoted congregant of a Pentecostal church in Canada; and (3) it was not
persuaded that Mr. Wu was at risk of religious persecution if he were to return
to Fujian province in China.
[3]
Mr. Wu argues that the Board’s findings were
unreasonable and asks me to overturn its decision and order a different panel
of the Board to reconsider his claim. However, I cannot find any grounds for
overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application
for judicial review.
[4]
The sole question is whether the Board’s three main
findings were unreasonable.
II.
The Board’s Decision
(1)
General Credibility Concerns
[5]
The Board expressed a number of concerns arising
from Mr. Wu’s testimony, including significant differences between Mr. Wu’s evidence
at the hearing into his refugee claim and the record of his statements when he
arrived at the port of entry (POE) into Canada. In addition, it found aspects of his account of events
implausible.
[6]
In terms of contradictions, the Board noted that
Mr. Wu denied knowing what passport he used to enter Canada or what name appeared on it. However, at the POE, he stated that he
had used an Indonesian passport, which the officer recorded in a summary of the
POE interview. Mr. Wu also stated at the POE that he had a valid Chinese
passport, which he gave to a friend for safe-keeping. At the hearing, he denied
having such a document.
[7]
In addition, Mr. Wu initially said that he did
not know what route he took to arrive in Canada. He later stated that he travelled from Hong Kong to Beijing and then to Canada. At the hearing, he conceded that he
deliberately attempted to mislead the POE officer.
[8]
The Board also found it implausible that Mr. Wu
had no idea what he would have said if he had been asked any questions about
his identity or his conflicting documentation along the way. He maintained that
the smuggler who accompanied him had assured him that he only had to follow along
and let the smuggler do all the talking. In addition, the Board found unlikely
Mr. Wu’s claim that he only came to Canada because the smuggler told him to do so. He stated that the smuggler
gave him no information about Canada or how he would be treated here, notwithstanding the large sum of
money he paid – about $27,000 Cdn.
[9]
The Board also expressed concerns about Mr. Wu’s
testimony surrounding his membership in an underground church in China. Mr. Wu was asked at the hearing
about the precautions that had been taken to avoid detection. He mentioned the use
of lookouts at the entrances to the building. However, when prompted, he
identified a number of other precautions, including meeting at three different
rural locations, hiding bibles if necessary, refraining from singing hymns, and
closing the blinds. The Board drew a negative inference from the fact that Mr.
Wu did not mention these precautions when first asked.
[10]
The Board was troubled by Mr. Wu’s use of the
term “Christianality” to describe his religion. Further, at the POE, Mr. Wu had
said that the PSB was looking for the head of the underground church. In his
personal information form, he said that the PSB was looking for him and his
family. In an additional written declaration, Mr. Wu said that the PSB had
arrested members of his church, but he did not mention that he was being
sought. The Board found his evidence unpersuasive.
[11]
The Board noted that Mr. Wu had not presented
any documentary evidence that supported his claim that the PSB was looking for
him. Contrary to common practice, the PSB had not left a warrant or summons
with his family, even though Mr. Wu claimed that the PSB had visited his family
on numerous occasions in his pursuit.
(2)
Mr. Wu’s Membership in the Pentecostal Church
[12]
The Board was satisfied that Mr. Wu had adequate
knowledge about the Christian religion. However, he had trouble articulating
his core religious beliefs. In addition, although Mr. Wu stated that he had
attended services at a Pentecostal church every week for more than two years,
he was unable to describe the celebration of the Pentecost. The Board concluded
that Mr. Wu had acquired knowledge of Christianity in order to supplement his
refugee claim.
(3)
Religious Persecution against Christians in Fujian Province
[13]
The Board reviewed documentary evidence
describing the treatment of Christians in Fujian province. It concluded that officials generally tolerated
underground churches there. While there were concerns in some urban areas, and
in respect of churches with links outside China, officials in Fujian seemed to turn a blind eye toward
most underground churches. No arrests of Christians had been documented since
2002. The Board concluded that Mr. Wu’s underground church was probably not
raided by the PSB, as he had claimed, and that he would be able to continue to
practise his religion if he so desired on return to China.
III.
Were the Board’s Findings Reasonable?
[14]
Mr. Wu argues that the Board should not have
compared his testimony at the hearing against his statements at the POE
(relying on Zhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 524). The procedures at the POE were not adequate, he
says, to ensure that an accurate recording of his testimony was taken. Mr. Wu’s
statements were taken over the phone and he had no means of ensuring their
accuracy. He raised concerns about the process as soon as he became aware of
statements attributed to him, just before his hearing at the Board.
[15]
Mr. Wu also argues that the Board’s negative
assessment of the account of his travel to Canada and his relationship with the smuggler were unmerited. There was no
basis on which to conclude, he says, that his testimony in these areas was
unpersuasive.
[16]
With respect to the Board’s reliance on differences
between Mr. Wu’s statements at the POE and his testimony at the hearing, I
accept that the Board should be careful not to place undue reliance on the POE
statements. The circumstances surrounding the taking of those statements is far
from ideal and questions about their reliability will often arise. Here, Mr. Wu
submits that he did not understand the interpreter at various points and that
this explains the differences between his POE statements and his testimony
before the Board.
[17]
However, there is no evidence to support Mr.
Wu’s claim of difficulties in communication at the POE. While he says he had
trouble understanding the translator at the POE, there is no record of his
having expressed those concerns. Nor was he subsequently able to identify the
portions of the interview during which he claimed to be unable to understand
the interpreter.
[18]
The Board concluded that Mr. Wu’s evidence
regarding his travel documents, his arrangements with the smuggler, his route
to Canada, the particulars
surrounding his underground church, and the alleged pursuit by the PSB, was
either false or implausible. In my view, this conclusion was supported by the
evidence.
[19]
Regarding Mr. Wu’s involvement in the
Pentecostal church, in my view, the Board provided a reasonable explanation for
its conclusion that Mr. Wu was not a genuine member of the congregation. He was
not able to describe one of the principal celebrations of the Pentecostal
church with which, after more than two years of attendance, one could
reasonably have expected Mr. Wu to be familiar.
[20]
In relation to the Board’s assessment of the
risk facing Mr. Wu in Fujian
province, I am satisfied that the Board considered and referred to all of the
relevant documentary evidence before it on the point. The Board specifically
noted the characteristics and size of the underground church Mr. Wu said he
attended and concluded that such a congregation would be unlikely to draw the
attention of officials in Fujian province.
[21]
Overall, I cannot conclude that the Board’s
decision was unreasonable. In respect of each of the Board’s three main
conclusions, it relied on the testimony and documentary evidence before it. It
provided a reasonable explanation for each of its conclusions and, in doing so,
made reference to the relevant evidence.
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[22]
Mr. Wu has not persuaded me that the Board’s
findings were unreasonable. Accordingly, I must deny his application for
judicial review. 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”
Email this Content