Docket:
IMM-12670-12
Citation: 2014 FC 20
Ottawa, Ontario, this 8th
day of January 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy
|
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JIE GUAN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
And
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
|
|
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
With this application, the applicant, Mr. Jie
Guan, seeks the judicial review of a decision rendered on November 8, 2012 by
the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
(the “Board”). The Board denied refugee status pursuant to sections 96 and 97
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[2]
The facts of this case are simple. The applicant
is from the province of Fujian of the People’s Republic of China. He claims to be at risk because he is now a Roman Catholic.
[3]
After a period of study in Ireland, the applicant obtained a study visa to come to Canada. He arrived in October 2011. He
claims to have started his interest in the Catholic faith while in Ireland and, after his arrival in Canada, he claims to have joined a Roman Catholic church soon
thereafter. His claim for refugee protection is based on religious persecution
if he is to be returned to his country of origin.
[4]
Originally, the applicant had also raised his
opposition to the one-child policy of China, but the claim has since been
abandoned and is therefore not before this Court.
[5]
In a nutshell, the Board found the applicant’s
claim to be not credible. The applicant arrived in Canada on October 23, 2011
and did not make a refugee claim at the time. Also, it is acknowledged by the
applicant that he did not have any religious beliefs when he arrived in Canada. Yet, two months later, he claims to have joined a Roman Catholic church. When asked
about the foundation of his new religious belief, the answers were less than
convincing. That made the Board conclude:
. . . I find, on a
balance of probabilities, that the claimant is not a genuine practicing Roman
Catholic and that he joined a catholic church in Toronto only for the purpose
of supporting a fraudulent claim for protection.
[6]
The applicant also claimed that if he were to be
returned to the Fujian province, he would not be able to practice his religion
freely. After examining the documentary evidence, the Board concluded that the Fujian province is considered to be more open in regard to underground church activity.
[7]
The issue of persecution on account of religion
becomes a live one only if it can be found that the applicant is deserving of
the protection of the law. The argument on behalf of the applicant can be
summarized in the following fashion. The panel, he claims, speculated on the
personally-held values and beliefs of the applicant, which would be
impermissible.
[8]
In order to be successful, the applicant will
have to show that the Board’s decision is unreasonable, as the notion has been
described in the case of Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1
SCR 190 at paragraph 47. Having reviewed the reasons of the Board, it seems to
me to be clear that the Board simply made a finding that the applicant is not a
genuine Roman Catholic. There was ample evidence to support that finding.
Indeed, the claim to have become a Roman Catholic does not have, in my view, an
air of reality.
[9]
It is clear, on this record, that the applicant
did not wish to return to China and wanted to establish himself in Canada. He certainly cannot be faulted for that. However, his sur place claim could
have been made much earlier than the two months he chose to wait to initiate
it. Actually, that two-month period was used for the purpose of joining a
Catholic community. It was open to the Board to conclude that his adhesion to a
Catholic church community in Toronto was motivated by his wish to create
circumstances that could allow a refugee protection determination. I cannot see
anything untoward in seeking to establish how genuine the adhesion can be. Given
how quickly the applicant joined that community, it was quite normal that
suspicions would arise. The Board’s questioning of the applicant was evidently
for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the adhesion. Read as a
whole, the reasons of the Board establish clearly that its finding that the
applicant was not a genuine practicing Catholic was perfectly reasonable. That
disposes of the issue.
[10]
Had I found that the applicant was a refugee on
the basis of his religious faith, I would nevertheless have found that he can
be returned to the Fujian province of China because the documentary evidence
does not establish that an objective risk of persecution exists if returned to
his country of nationality. Be that as it may, there is no need to reach that
conclusion in view of the reasonableness of the Board’s finding that the
applicant is not a genuine practicing Roman Catholic. In view of the evidence,
that finding is reasonable.
[11]
This case was made unusual because the applicant
has not been in touch with counsel for many months. Counsel for the applicant
appeared before me on December 16, 2013 and sought to withdraw from the file.
His client had not communicated with him in a long period of time and he had
received no instructions concerning the pursuit of this matter. However there
was no indication that the applicant would not have wished to carry on once his
leave application had been granted. In other words, can we proceed on the basis
of the record as it is? I was persuaded through my exchange with counsel that
such is the case.
[12]
Nevertheless, the Court adjourned the case on
December 16 and asked counsel, and counsel agreed, to communicate with the
church community the applicant claims to have joined in order to enquire about
his whereabouts. Counsel reported on December 18 that the applicant has not
been seen in some time.
[13]
In the best tradition of the Bar, counsel agreed
to present the case for the applicant on the basis of the leave application
which had already been granted by this Court. There was an arguable case and it
was indeed argued on December 18.
[14]
As a result, the judicial review application is
dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content