Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040224

Docket: IMM-3337-03

Citation: 2004 FC 274

Toronto, Ontario, February 24th, 2004

Present:           The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein                                  

BETWEEN:

                                                                 BAI QUAN YANG

Applicant

                                                                                 and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)

[1]                 The Board in this case made the finding that the applicant was not credible based on differences between his PIF and his oral testimony.

[2]                 While it accepted the fact that the applicant's wife had to undergo a forced abortion under China's one child family and that she suffered haemorrhaging as a result thereof, it did not accept the fact that she since has suffered from anaemia and therefore cannot not be forcefully sterilized.

[3]                 This finding of credibility was not unreasonable under the circumstances and the Court would not normally disturb it.

[4]                 However the Board went further and stated:

The panel does not believe the claimant. Instead, it believes that his spouse, who underwent forced abortion three years ago and has remained at home in China, has indeed be sterilized.

[5]                 This is a mere conjecture by the Board. There is no evidence whatsoever in the record that the wife has indeed been sterilized.

[6]                 The Board can make finding of credibility, it can reject evidence for good reason, it can make findings of plausibility but it cannot establish new facts by conjecture.

[7]                 This finding by the Board is essential to its overall conclusion that the Chinese authorities are no longer interested in the applicant.

[8]                 Given it's materiality this unsupported finding constitutes a reviewable error. The matter is therefore sent back for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that            

1.          The decision of the Board of April 2003 is set aside.


2.          The matter is referred back to the Board for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel.                                                 

"K. von Finckenstein"

                                                         

line                                                                                                            J.F.C.                          


FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                              IMM-3337-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                              BAI    QUAN    YANG   

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:                        FEBRUARY 24, 2004

PLACE OF HEARING:                       TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                  von FINCKENSTEIN J.

DATED:                                                   FEBRUARY 24, 2004

APPEARANCES BY:                      

Carla Sturdy                                             For the Applicant

Lorne McClenaghan                                For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:         

Carla Sturdy           

Toronto, Ontario                                     For the Applicant

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     For the Respondent

                                                               

                                                                                                                             

                                                      

                                              


                                                  

FEDERAL COURT

TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20040224

Docket: IMM-3337-03

BETWEEN:

BAI QUAN YANG

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

                                                                           

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                                          


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.