Docket: IMM-862-13
Citation:
2014 FC 385
Ottawa, Ontario, April 28,
2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SING CHAO
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Sing Chao is a citizen of Cambodia and a Buddhist monk. He says that he fears persecution from the Cambodian authorities.
[2]
The applicant alleged he was in a leadership
position in the Khmer Kampuchea Krom Federation (KKKF), for which he helped
organize a protest outside the Vietnamese embassy in Phnom Penh in 2007.
Following that event, he claimed that he was harassed by Cambodian authorities
until he came to Canada, and he remained here because he was advised by his
abbot that the police were looking for him.
[3]
The Board characterized the applicant’s claim as
a fear of persecution due to his political opinion, but rejected his claim
because he was found not credible. The Board gave the following reasons for
disbelieving the applicant:
• The
applicant declared in his application that his membership in the KKKF ended in
1993, and he did not mention his membership in the KKKF or his leadership role
in his Personal Information Form [PIF] narrative. Although he produced a
membership card, it was only issued in September, 2011, and it described him as
a supporting member, not a leader. There was no other corroborating evidence
of his involvement with the KKKF.
• The
applicant never mentioned the 2007 protest in his PIF narrative, and he said it
happened in March when the documentary evidence showed that it happened in
February. Further, the applicant did not mention in his PIF narrative that he
was detained and interrogated shortly after the protest. These events were
central to his claim and he gave no reasonable explanation for either omission.
• The
applicant was in Canada for more than two years without lawful status before
seeking protection, which is inconsistent with his alleged fear of returning to
Cambodia.
[4]
Because the Board did not believe the applicant’s
evidence, it concluded that he was probably not active with the KKKF and never
experienced any persecution from the authorities. Further, although the
applicant’s immigration consultant had proposed that religion was another nexus
to Convention protection, the applicant himself testified that he did not fear
persecution for that reason. Therefore, the Board dismissed the section 96
claim.
[5]
Because the applicant was not credible, the
Board said there was not enough evidence to show that he faced any danger of
torture or any personalized risk. Therefore, it dismissed the subsection 97(1)
claim as well.
Issues
[6]
Although many issues were raised in the
memorandum, at the hearing counsel referenced three issues:
1. Whether
the applicant was denied natural justice by the refusal of the Board to allow
him to call a witness coupled with the tenure of the hearing which was
characterized as the Member being “glib” and “sarcastic;”
2. Whether
the Board erred in finding that there was no nexus to a Convention ground,
namely religion; and
3. Whether
the Board erred in its credibility finding.
[7]
I find that there was no denial of natural
justice. I have reviewed the transcript and find nothing particularly
aggressive about the Board’s questions. The applicant points to one statement
where the Board member says “… people are human,
even Monks are human …” as evidence of sarcasm. Stripped of context, such a
statement could conceivably be demeaning. However, at that point in the
interview, the member had already asked several times whether there were any
consequences if a monk stayed out of the Pagoda longer than he was permitted,
and the applicant kept responding only that it was not allowed. In making that
statement, the Board was simply trying to overcome the apparent
misunderstanding by emphasizing that he was concerned about what happened to a
monk who disobeyed that rule. It was not sarcastic or insensitive in context.
In short, there was nothing in the conduct of the hearing that was unfair to
the applicant.
[8]
The applicant was represented by counsel before
the Board. The fact that the applicant’s abbot was outside the hearing room
arose indirectly when the applicant was being questioned by the Board. It was
never suggested by the applicant or his counsel that he was waiting to
testify. It was the Board, not the applicant or his counsel that considered
whether the abbot might have relevant evidence to the point then under
discussion and concluded he did not. There is no evidence before the Court to
suggest that the abbot had anything relevant to offer. Further, neither the
applicant nor his counsel ever asked that the abbot testify. In short, there
was simply no refusal to permit the applicant to call whatever witnesses he
wished.
[9]
The applicant submits that it is not 100% clear
from the record that there was no persecution on the grounds of religion. I
find that the Board’s determination that there was no such nexus was reasonable
based on the evidence that Buddhism is the national religion in Cambodia and also
based on the applicant’s own evidence that he did not fear persecution on that
basis. Despite counsel’s able submissions, it is evident to me that the
applicant’s own testimony was to that effect.
[10]
Lastly, the Board’s findings on credibility are
entitled to considerable deference by this Court. The inconsistencies in the
applicant’s evidence and the delay in claiming protection are a sufficient
basis to support a reasonable finding that the applicant was not credible.
Accordingly, this application must be dismissed.
[11]
Neither party proposed a question for
certification.
Email this Content