Date: 20011115
Court File No.: IMM-5957-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1256
Ottawa, Ontario, this 15th day of November, 2001
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLANCHARD
BETWEEN:
LIAN SAI HE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant is a refugee claimant from the People's Republic of China. He seeks judicial review of a negative decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) dated October 10, 2000.
[2] The applicant was born on November 1, 1950, in Isingtao City, Shandong Province, in the eastern part of China and was employed as a taxation officer at the Tax Bureau office from July 1975 to July 1998. He joined Falun Gong, a religious organization, in 1997 after reading Zhuan Falun, a book setting out the basic tenets of Falun Gong. He practised his faith with thirty others every morning for one hour, seven days a week. The applicant stated that at their spiritual meetings, members prayed for others and meditated, and that Falun Gong is a religion aimed at spiritual enlightenment and peace for all mankind. He also claimed to be "a leader" in the Falun Gong community.
[3] In April of 1999, the applicant's group was informed that Falun Gong members had been arrested in Tianjin. The group supported the group in Tianjin by writing letters and organizing meetings. The applicant was asked to make representations to the Mayor of Tsingtao on behalf of his group. Access to the mayor's office was not possible so a peaceful rally was staged. The applicant assisted in organizing this rally and another rally held on April 22, 1999, for 50 practising Falun Gong members at the entrance to the municipal government offices in Tsingtao City. Even though the April 22, 1999, rally was held without the required permit, the Police did not intervene at this peaceful "silent" rally.
[4] On April 25, 1999, the applicant's evidence is that he went to Beijing with approximately 10,000 Falun Gong members for a further peace rally. When he returned to work on April 26, he was warned by his employer to refrain from practising Falun Gong and told to consider his future career and bonuses.
[5] On July 20, 1999, the applicant was arrested at home by the police, beaten and taken away to be questioned about being a Falun Gong member. The applicant's evidence is that he was detained for five days, questioned and beaten daily until July 24, 1999. On that day, he was beaten so severely he had to be hospitalized. On July 31, 1999, he escaped from the hospital and with the help of friends eventually made his way to Canada via North Korea and Russia. He arrived in Canada on August 18, 1999, and claimed refugee status based on his fear of persecution at the hands of the Public Security Bureau (P.S.B.) because he is a member of the Falun Dofa (also known as Falun Gong).
[6] The negative decision of the CRDD was based on a finding that the claimant was not a credible witness. The CRDD based its decision on a number of negative inferences and plausibility findings, each of which is challenged by the applicant.
[7] The applicant was unable to remember much about the book, Zhuan Falun, not knowing how many sections it had, nor able to demonstrate an understanding of it. He finally admitted on examination that he really only read about one third of it. It was the applicant's evidence that he began practising Falun Gong only after he read Zhuan Falun, recognized as the Falun Gong "Bible". Counsel for the applicant contends that his knowledge of Falun Gong was sufficient to identify him as a member of Falun Gon. Arguing he was not the spiritual leader of the Group but a leader in the sense that he organized members for rallies and, therefore, should not be expected to be as knowledgeable as the leader for the Falun Group in his community. In light of the applicant's own evidence that he was "a leader" in his community, it is my opinion that the CRDD's finding, that his commitment to Falun Gong as "a leader" was inconsistent with his ignorance of basic tenets and principles of the Group, to be reasonable. Given this conflicting evidence, it was not unreasonable for the CRDD to have drawn a negative inference on his credibility.
[8] The applicant has not practised Falun Gong since he arrived in Canada. It is reasonable to assume that one who claims to be a community Falun Gong leader who practised every morning of the week for two years would continue to pursue his Falun Gong cultic practices upon arriving in Canada. This would be particularly so when one is fleeing persecution for being a member of Falun Gong. The applicant's excuse is that he wanted to but could not find the Book. This strikes me as unconvincing. I therefore find the CRDD's conclusion, that the applicant derived whatever knowledge he has regarding Falun Gong for the purpose of making a refugee claim, to be reasonable.
[9] The CRDD drew a negative inference from the applicant's assertion that Falun Gong was a religion. Counsel for the applicant submits that the CRDD erred in drawing such an inference arguing that the applicant held an honest belief that Falun Gong was a religion. The CRDD based its decision in this respect on documentation that clearly stated that members of Falun Gong categorized Falun Gong as a cultic practice, not a religion. Given the documentation, I find that it was reasonable for the CRDD to draw a negative inference on the credibility of the applicant.
[10] The applicant argues that the CRDD erred by focussing on the applicant's knowledge of Falun Gong as "a leader" and ignoring the possibility of whether the applicant would be persecuted as a mere member of the Falun Gong. On this point, I accept the submissions of the respondent. The CRDD did examine the applicant's evidence and found it to be implausible and inconsistent, findings that I believe were reasonably open to it on the evidence. The CRDD simply did not believe any of the applicant's story. It did not believe that he was even a practitioner of Falun Gong, much less a leader.
[11] The CRDD found the applicant evasive on several occasions and did not answer the questions put to him.The applicant was also inconsistent in his testimony. When he was asked, at the hearing, what motivated him to mobilize a group of 30 to go to Beijing on April 25, 1999, he gave no fewer than five different and inconsistent answers. It is my view that the CRDD is justified in concluding that the claimant's evasiveness and implausible response to this question further detracts from his credibility.
Standard of Review
[12] In Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315, pp. 316-317, at para. 4, Mr. Justice Décary set the standard of review with regards to findings of credibility and plausibility of the CRDD, he stated:
There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review.
[13] I conclude that the inferences drawn and plausibility findings made by the CRDD were reasonably open to it. I find no reviewable error in the CRDD's decision. For the above reasons this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[14] The parties, having had the opportunity, have not requested that I certify a serious question of general importance as contemplated by section 83 of the Immigration Act. Therefore, I do not propose to certify a serious question of general importance.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge