Date: 20110902
Docket: IMM-5714-10
Citation: 2011 FC 1045
Ottawa, Ontario, September 2, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
YI LIANG LIU
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
In
2008, Mr. Yi Liang Liu sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming
that the underground Christian church to which he had belonged in Fujian
province, China, had been
raided by the Public Security Bureau [PSB]. He maintains that the PSB searched
his home, confiscated his personal documents, arrested other congregants, and still
continue to pursue him.
[2]
A
panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr. Liu’s claim after it
found that it was not supported by the documentary evidence about the situation
in Fujian, and that
Mr. Liu would be able to practise Christianity in Fujian without
persecution. Mr. Liu argues that the Board erred in its treatment of the
documentary evidence and applied the wrong legal test of what amounts to
“persecution.” He asks me to quash the Board’s decision and order a new
hearing.
[3]
I
can find no grounds, however, for overturning the Board’s decision and must,
therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. In my view, neither
the Board’s interpretation of the documentary evidence nor its conclusion that
Mr. Liu would not be persecuted in Fujian was unreasonable.
[4]
There
are two issues:
1. Did the Board err in
its treatment of the documentary evidence?
2. Did the Board apply
the wrong test for “persecution”?
II. The Board’s Decision
[5]
The
Board had some concerns about Mr. Liu’s credibility. For example, he gave
contradictory evidence about whether and when the PSB had confiscated his
documents. It concluded that Mr. Liu had filed a fraudulent “List of Seized
Items.”
[6]
The
Board noted that, according to the documentary evidence, it is common for the
PSB to leave a warrant or summons with the family members of a suspect whose
whereabouts are unknown. However, there was no evidence that a warrant had been
issued for Mr. Liu.
[7]
The
Board went on to review the documentary evidence regarding the suppression of
Christianity in China, particularly in Fujian. It noted
that the principal targets are church leaders, house churches in urban areas,
Christian publications, and foreign missionaries. In the opinion of the
President of the China Aid Association, persecution sometimes takes the form of
warnings, fines and harassment, rather than overt mistreatment of practitioners.
In the Board’s view, however, if members of Mr. Liu’s house church had actually
been arrested, observers would have reported it.
[8]
The
Board accepted that Catholics were persecuted in Fujian, but not
Protestants, such as Mr. Liu. There was some evidence of persecution of house
churches, but it was not widespread. The evidence also reported the destruction
of a church in Fujian, but made no reference to its size,
denomination, or the reason why it was demolished. In sum, the documentary
evidence did not support Mr. Liu’s claim of persecution on religious grounds.
The Board concluded that Mr. Liu’s church had not been raided and that the PSB
is not looking for him.
III. Did the Board err in its
treatment of the documentary evidence?
[9]
Mr
Liu argues that the Board erred when it found that the PSB would likely have
left a warrant or summons with his family if it was really interested in him.
The documentary evidence supported the Board’s conclusion, but Mr. Liu argues
that the information in the documentary evidence was not reliable. The source
of that information was an unidentified representative of a little-known group
called “Human Rights in China”, who appeared to have relied on the
opinion of an unidentified lawyer in Hong Kong. Mr. Liu concedes that the Board
is entitled to consider any evidence it considers credible and trustworthy, but
there was nothing to indicate that this particular evidence was reliable.
[10]
In
addition, the same document contained an opinion from other sources, the Open
Society Institute and a University of Washington professor, stating that
warrants and summonses are usually issued to the individual being sought, not a
family member. The Board did not explain why it accepted one opinion and rejected
another within the same documentary source.
[11]
I
note that Mr. Liu has not challenged the Board’s adverse credibility finding or
its conclusion that he did not fit the profile of someone at risk for religious
persecution. On those two grounds alone, its conclusion that the PSB was not
looking for him falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.
[12]
However,
the Board was entitled to weigh the evidence regarding the issuance of warrants
and summonses. I also disagree with Mr. Liu’s submission that the evidence
contained two irreconcilable opinions about procedures in China. While the
proper procedure may be to leave a summons with the named individual, the Open
Society Institute’s own statement indicates this is not always the case. Practices
vary.
[13]
Therefore,
I cannot conclude that the Board erred in its treatment of the documentary
evidence on warrants and summonses.
IV. Did the Board apply the wrong
test of “persecution”?
[14]
Mr.
Liu submits that the Board erred by equating “persecution” with arrests,
detention and raids on churches. It did not consider whether he would be able
to practise his religion openly and freely in China.
[15]
However,
I do not read the Board’s decision as amounting to a conclusion that, simply because
he is unlikely to be arrested or detained, Mr. Liu can practice his religion in
China. The Board
disbelieved Mr. Liu’s allegation that his church had been raided and that he
was wanted by the PSB. It went on to find that his profile, and the religious
activities he was involved in, would not be of interest to the PSB. It also
noted the dearth of evidence of religious persecution in Fujian of any sort,
including fines, short-term detentions or the confiscation of materials.
[16]
Accordingly,
I cannot conclude that the Board applied the wrong test for “persecution.”
V. Conclusion and Disposition
[17]
The
Board did not err in its treatment of the documentary evidence or in its
analysis of the issue of persecution. Accordingly, I can find no grounds for
overturning the Board’s decision and must dismiss this 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