Docket: IMM-311-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1824
Ottawa, Ontario, November 15, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Turley
BETWEEN: |
YINGJUN WANG |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, a citizen of China, seeks judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]’s decision refusing his claim for refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. He claimed asylum based on his fear of arrest by the Public Security Bureau [PSB] after protesting the expropriation and demolition of his house. The RAD dismissed the Applicant’s appeal of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]’s decision based on credibility concerns.
[2] I am dismissing this application because the RAD’s adverse credibility determination, stemming from the Applicant’s failure to provide documentary evidence corroborating his land title or expropriation notice, is reasonable. Given that the Applicant’s refugee claim was based on his future risk of arrest as a protestor, this finding is dispositive and there is no need to consider the other grounds of review.
II. Background
A. The Applicant’s refugee claim
[3] In his Basis of Claim [BOC] narrative, the Applicant stated that in May 2018, the local government issued an expropriation order and proposed compensation in an amount insufficient enough to relocate or replace his home. Consequently, the Applicant joined other neighbours also facing expropriation orders and attempted to negotiate a higher price, to no avail. The following month, government officials came to demolish his home. A standoff ensued, and the Applicant stood in the way of a bulldozer. When PSB agents intervened, the Applicant began insulting them. Following this altercation, the Applicant fled to his aunt’s house.
[4] While in hiding, the Applicant’s wife called to tell him that PSB agents had gone to each of their parents’ homes, accusing him of involvement in anti-government action, slandering government officials, and preventing officials from fulfilling their duties. The PSB left a summons for the Applicant and returned to look for him several times. Fearing arrest, the Applicant hired a smuggler to help him escape China. He travelled on his own passport, arriving in Canada on March 3, 2019.
B. The RPD’s decision
[5] For the RPD, the determinative issue was credibility. It found that, considering China’s surveillance of its citizens’ international travel, the Applicant likely would not have been able to leave the country on his own passport. It also doubted that the Applicant was wanted by the PSB because of the minor role he played in the expropriation protests. Further, the RPD found that the Applicant’s testimony was vague because he could not remember the exact day of the standoff nor how long it lasted.
[6] Based on these credibility concerns, the RPD asked the Applicant for corroborative evidence, such as property title, the notice of expropriation, the appraisal report of his house, and the PSB summons. The Applicant testified that he could not find these records. The only documents he provided to support “the core of his claim”
were two photographs purporting to show his demolished home: Reasons and Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated November 24, 2021 at para 17 [RPD Decision].
[7] The RPD acknowledged that the Applicant’s explanation for the lack of documentary evidence was plausible. However, it found, “on a balance of probabilities, that the nearly total absence of documentation related to the core of his claim, when viewed in light of the other credibility findings in these reasons, undermines the credibility of his allegations”
: RPD Decision at para 17.
C. The RAD’s decision
[8] After its initial review of the appeal, the RAD issued a Direction dated October 27, 2022, asking the Applicant specific questions about the documents he claimed were lost:
When, approximately, were each of the documents lost or known to have been lost? How were each of the documents lost?
Please provide details, including timing, of any efforts taken to find or replace any or all of the lost documents.
Please also provide any further submissions, if necessary, on the failure of the Appellant to provide the noted documents.
[9] In response, the Applicant submitted a letter from his wife. This letter did not answer the RAD’s specific questions, instead stating that she had searched for the documents and was unable to find them.
[10] After a thorough examination, the RAD concluded that the Applicant’s explanation for failing to provide reasonably available documents was unsatisfactory. Further, the RAD determined that the lack of documentary evidence undermined the Applicant’s claim that “he was the owner, via his father, of property which was subject to appropriation by the Chinese government”
: Reasons and Decision of the Refugee Appeal Protection Division dated December 15, 2022 at para 21 [RAD Decision].
[11] Ultimately, the RAD held that the Applicant had provided “no documentation to corroborate his claim that he is wanted for protesting the expropriation of his home other than the new letter from his wife which is of limited probative value”
: RAD Decision at para 42. The RAD dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.
III. Analysis
[12] There is no dispute that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. A reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 8.
[13] In light of the facts and law, the RAD’s adverse credibility finding based on the lack of documentary evidence available to corroborate the Applicant’s claim that he was at risk of persecution for protesting the government’s expropriation of his house is reasonable. As the RAD stated, the onus was on the Applicant to prove his claim for protection. More specifically, Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, “requires a refugee claimant to provide acceptable documents establishing the elements of their claim”
: RAD Decision at para 20.
[14] Here, due to the lack of corroborating documents, the Applicant failed to satisfy his onus. The RAD concluded that it was “reasonable to expect”
that the Applicant would gather the necessary evidence to prove his allegations. The RAD based this conclusion on the following factual findings: (i) the Applicant knew as of March 12, 2019, that his claim was based on the land dispute; (ii) he was represented by counsel when he completed his BOC on March 22, 2019, and it was reasonable to expect that counsel would advise him of the importance of these documents to prove his claim; and (iii) the Applicant had over two and a half years to obtain or replace the documents in question before the RPD hearing on October 20, 2021: RAD Decision at paras 18–19.
[15] Furthermore, as set out in paragraph 8 above, the RAD gave the Applicant an opportunity to answer its concerns about the lost documents before rendering a decision. The RAD posed specific questions regarding when the documents were lost and what efforts had been made to find or replace them. However, the Applicant failed to address these questions, simply submitting a letter from his wife reiterating that she was unable to locate the documents. The RAD was justified in finding that the wife’s letter had limited probative value, as it did not address the RAD’s concerns.
[16] This Court has concluded that a failure to provide corroborative evidence may be relied upon by a decision-maker to impugn a claimant’s credibility where such evidence would reasonably be expected to be available and there is no reasonable explanation for its absence: Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 300 at para 25; Ni v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 460 at paras 16, 19–22 [Ni]; Senadheerage v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 968 at para 36; Luo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 823 at paras 20–21. As Justice McHaffie stated, decision-makers are “expected to set out their conclusions to this effect with reasonable precision, an expectation that accords with the general principles of transparency and justification in administrative decision making”
: Ni at para 22.
[17] In my view, the RAD did precisely that. It explained the types of corroborative evidence it expected from the Applicant to support his claim, namely documents establishing his ownership of the property (property deed, property appraisal documents) and documents proving its expropriation by Chinese authorities (the demolition notice, the expropriation notice): RAD Decision at paras 12–19.
[18] I accept the RAD’s conclusion that expecting this type of corroborating evidence in the circumstances of the Applicant’s claim is reasonable. The RAD’s determination in that regard is intelligible, justified, and transparent:
[20] […] In a case involving land expropriation, it is reasonable to expect documentary evidence establishing the ownership of the land, the value of the land and the expropriation. It is not the absence of any of one of these documents which is determinative but, rather, the absence of any documentation either to establish ownership of the land or the expropriation process, as was the case in Ni.
[Emphasis in original.]
IV. Conclusion
[19] The RAD’s adverse credibility finding, based on the lack of corroborating evidence establishing that the Applicant is at risk of persecution in China, is reasonable and dispositive of the judicial review application. In light of this determination, it is unnecessary to consider the other issues raised by the Applicant. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[20] The parties did not raise a question for certification and none arises in this case.
Email this Content