Date: 20040819
Docket: IMM-6894-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1152
BETWEEN:
ZHANG CHUNFANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM J.
[1] On the 18th of August, 2004, by a telephone conference call, I heard the applicant's application for stay of the removal order of the applicant, scheduled for August 20, 2004.
[2] Soon after hearing the parties through their counsel, I dismissed the application as I was satisfied that the application for stay failed to show a serious issue to be tried.
[3] The applicant arrived in Canada on February 25, 2000 and was granted admission on a work authorization valid until February 13, 2001.
[4] The applicant requested an extension of this status but was refused. Two weeks after the requested status was refused (the extension of the work authorization) the applicant filed a claim for refugee status. The application for refugee status was denied. The respondent states on page one of its submissions, ". . . with the panel finding that the Applicant lacked credibility".
[5] The applicant applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") and provided a letter dated January 19, 2004, together with photocopies of various documents.
[6] It would appear from a reading of the said letter, the applicant would be repeating what she had said during her refugee claim hearing, she needs protection by reason of her religion, which was denied, but did tender some new evidence, a notice of arrest for her husband and a copy of a Court judgment relating to her Pastor in China.
[7] It is most important to note for the present application, that the documents submitted allegedly showing the notice of arrest for the applicant's husband and of the Court judgment were photocopies and not the original documents. This quote was of particular importance to the hearing officer as she states in her decision.
To support her PRRA application she has presented a copy of a court judgement related to Pastor Bo Ning and the four church members, the notice of arrest of her husband, an affidavit from the person who carried these documents to Canada, news articles, country information from persectution.org [sic], and miscellaneous documents related to her nursing and religious activities in Canada.
I attach low weight to the first three documents for the following reasons. These documents were "secretly collected" by the applicant's brother once he learned of the applicant's situation from the man visiting from Canada. They appear to be photocopies. They do not have the appearance I would expect of documents surreptitiously obtained and smuggled out of the country. I note there are no creases or marks that would indicate that type of handling.
The Immigration and Refugee Board's REFINFO contains a document discussing the manufacturing, procurement, and distribution of fraudulent documents. It states that in addition to travel documents other types of documents such as Public Security Bureau and State Family Planning Commission documents are available for purchased [sic] to support a person's asylum claim. It states, in part, . . .
[8] Counsel for the applicant, during the hearing before me, strongly submitted that the hearing officer erred when she stated she gave "low weight to the first three documents" because of the problem of possible fraudulent documents. Counsel submitted that if the hearing officer was concerned with the authenticity of the documents, it was for her to further investigate the validity of the documents.
[9] With due respect, I would believe that it would be for the applicant to convince the hearing officer that the documents were authentic.
[10] I say this because the applicant filed photocopies of the documents rather than finding the original documents. Now, I can well understand filing photocopies when it would not be possible to file the original documents. This is not the problem in the case before me.
[11] In the affidavit of Aaron Vuppal, a person who works in the office of the solicitor for the applicant, Mr. Vuppal states, "The originals of the charge against the applicant's husband and the conviction against the applicant's Pastor in China are in the file possessed by the applicant's solicitor."
[12] With due respect, I cannot understand not filing the original documents for the PRRA hearing and not filing the documents for the stay application, knowing that a major reason for the PRRA decision was the authenticity of the documents.
[13] It is clear to me that the PRRA decision based on the facts as stated by the PRRA hearing officer is not only not patently unreasonable, but is most reasonable.
[14] It is clear that the applicant failed to raise a serious issue.
[15] I need not discuss the issues of irreparable harm and balance of convenience.
[16] The application for stay, as I have already discussed, is denied.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
August 19, 2004
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6894-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ZHANG CHUNFANG
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
APPLICANT'S MOTION HEARD BY TELECONFERENCE IN OTTAWA
DATE OF HEARING: August 18, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER OF Teitelbaum J.
APPEARANCES:
M. Max Chaudhary
FOR APPLICANT
Lorne McClenaghan
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Chaudhary Law Office
Toronto, Ontario
FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR RESPONDENT