Date: 20091201
Docket: IMM-2347-09
Citation: 2009 FC 1228
Ottawa, Ontario, December 1, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
KEREN HE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Keren He arrived in Canada from China in December 2006 and claimed refugee
protection. She stated that she had been involved in an underground Christian
church and was being sought by the Public Security Bureau in China. However, just before the hearing of her claim, she
recanted her story entirely. She admitted that she had fabricated her claim and
had filed untruthful documents in support of it. Her true motivation for
leaving China and coming to Canada was to make money, not to seek refuge.
Further, she conceded that she had attended a Christian church in Canada in order to acquire some knowledge of Christianity
that would bolster her claim. Still, she maintained that, over time, she
acquired a genuine devotion to Christianity and, therefore, feared returning to
China where she might experience religious persecution.
[2]
Ms. He presented her
claim to a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which dismissed it. She
argues that the Board failed to treat her fairly and neglected to conduct a
proper analysis of the risk she might face if she returned to China. She asks me to overturn the Board’s decision and
order another panel to reconsider it.
[3]
I can find no basis for
overturning the Board’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application
for judicial review.
II.
Analysis
[4]
The issues are:
1.
Did the Board conduct a fair
hearing?
2.
Should the Board have conducted a
separate analysis of Ms. He’s claim under s. 97 of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act?
1. Did the Board conduct a fair hearing?
[5]
Ms He submits that the Board was
required to give her a fair chance to present her claim, notwithstanding her
original false account of events. In particular, given that she was
unrepresented by counsel, the Board was obliged to give her more of an
opportunity to convey her knowledge of Christianity. I disagree.
[6]
Given her recantation, the only
evidence supporting Ms. He’s claim was her own testimony, a baptismal
certificate, and a certificate indicating her completion of a course in
Scripture, Prayer and Bible Reading. She admitted that a letter from her pastor
describing her involvement in the church was false. At the hearing, she was
able to recite the Lord’s Prayer and part of Psalm 23.
[7]
The Board drew negative inferences
regarding Ms. He’s credibility, not only because of her admitted attempt at
fraud, but because she evaded and refused to answer a number of questions at
the hearing. While the Board was satisfied that Ms. He had some knowledge of
Christianity, by her own admission, this knowledge was acquired in order to
further her bogus refugee claim. Therefore, the Board was not persuaded that
she was a genuine Christian.
[8]
I cannot conclude that the Board
treated Ms. He unfairly. The reason why there was so little evidence supporting
her claim was because the materials she had previously supplied contained false
allegations and assertions. The reason why the Board was not satisfied that her
faith was genuine was because she admitted that her knowledge of Christianity
was acquired for an oblique motive. Providing Ms. He with further opportunities
to display her knowledge would not have advanced her claim.
[9]
In my view, the Board gave Ms. He
a fair chance to present her claim and arrived at a reasonable conclusion based
on the evidence before it.
2. Should the Board have conducted a separate analysis
of Ms. He’s claim under s. 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
[10]
Ms. He submits that the Board
should have gone on to conduct an analysis of her claim under s. 97 even though
it found no basis for her refugee claim. Again, I disagree.
[11]
The Board concluded that Ms. He
was not a genuine Christian. Having made that finding, there was no basis for
any claim to be at risk on return to China. The foundation for her claim to be in need of
protection had collapsed. In these circumstances, “a separate section 97
analysis is not required if there is no evidence that could go to establishing
that the person is in need of protection” (Biro v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1428, at para. 21). Accordingly, the Board committed no
error by failing to deal with s. 97.
[12]
This application for judicial
review is dismissed. 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