Docket: IMM-3135-15
Citation:
2016 FC 712
Ottawa, Ontario, June 27, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GAOLU LIN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr Gao Lu Lin claimed refugee protection in
Canada based on his fear of persecution in China as a practitioner of Falun
Gong. He claims that the Chinese Public Security Bureau (PSB) raided the place
where he and his fellow practitioners met. He then fled China with the
assistance of a smuggler.
[2]
A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board
dismissed Mr Lin’s claim due to a lack of credible evidence. However, he
successfully appealed that ruling to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), which
ordered a new hearing before the Board. Once again, the Board found that Mr
Lin’s allegations were unsupported by credible evidence. The RAD upheld that
decision.
[3]
Mr Lin now seeks judicial review of the RAD’s
decision arguing that it arrived at unreasonable conclusions on the evidence.
He asks me to quash the RAD’s decision and order another panel to reconsider
his case.
[4]
I can find no basis for overturning the RAD’s
decision. In my view, its treatment of the evidence was reasonable.
[5]
The sole issue is whether the RAD’s decision was
unreasonable.
II.
The RAD’s Decision
[6]
The RAD pointed out a number of areas where the
evidence tendered in support of Mr Lin’s claim lacked credibility. In
particular:
•
Mr Lin maintained that he was able to leave
China on his own passport, even while being sought by the PSB. The RAD thought
this was implausible.
•
Mr Lin had provided few details about the PSB
raid in his written narrative. The RAD considered this the central event in Mr
Lin’s claim and drew an adverse inference from the lack of particulars.
•
Mr Lin contended that he was able to escape the
PSB raid by exiting through the rear doors of the building. The RAD found that
it was unlikely that a sophisticated police force such as the PSB would fail to
monitor the rear doors.
•
There was little evidence showing that the PSB
was still interested in Mr Lin.
•
Mr Lin failed to provide any corroborating
evidence; in fact, he failed to make any serious efforts to obtain supporting
documentation.
•
There was little evidence that Mr Lin was
actually a Falun Gong practitioner. His knowledge of religious principles was
scant. Further, he practiced Falun Gong only for the first two months out of
the 14 months he spent in Canada.
[7]
Based on these findings, the RAD concluded that
Mr Lin’s claim lacked credibility.
III.
Was the RAD’s decision unreasonable?
[8]
Mr Lin submits that the RAD’s evidentiary
findings were unreasonable. In particular, contrary to the RAD’s finding, he
did refer to the PSB raid in his written narrative. At the hearing, he simply
provided additional details, which is the purpose of an oral hearing. In
addition, the RAD provided no basis for its finding that the PSB would have
conducted the raid in a thorough and professional manner; documentary evidence
shows that police practices are uneven across China. Mr Lin also maintains that
the RAD erred by failing to make any definitive finding about whether the raid
actually occurred.
[9]
The RAD upheld the Board’s finding that the
smuggler Mr Lin hired was probably responsible for helping him fabricate a
refugee claim in Canada. Mr Lin argues that there was no evidence to support
the RAD’s conclusion on that point.
[10]
I disagree with Mr Lin’s submissions.
[11]
First of all, I note that Mr Lin does not
challenge the RAD’s conclusions that he had failed to establish that the PSB
was actually looking for him; that, if the PSB was interested in him, he would
likely have difficulty leaving China on his own passport; that he failed to
provide corroborating evidence; and, that he had not established that he was
actually a Falun Gong practitioner.
[12]
Further, Mr Lin had left out many particulars
about the alleged PSB raid and his subsequent actions. This was the central
event in Mr Lin’s claim, yet he did not mention that he fled the scene and
travelled over 1,000 km overnight to prepare to leave China. Regarding the
actions of the PSB, it is true that police procedures regarding the issuance of
summonses and arrest warrants appears to be uneven throughout China, but this
does not explain why the PSB would fail to conduct surveillance of the rear
doors of a building it was raiding.
[13]
Finally, while I agree with Mr Lin that there
was no evidence that a smuggler assisted him with his refugee claim, the RAD
reasonably concluded that Mr Lin had failed to explain the details of his itinerary
from China to the United States and Canada. Since he travelled on his own
passport and would have been screened by border authorities along the way,
these omissions cast doubt on his explanation that a smuggler had made all the
arrangements.
IV.
Conclusion and Disposition
[14]
The RAD reasonably concluded that Mr Lin’s
refugee claim was not supported by credible evidence. Accordingly, I must
dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question
of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
Email this Content