Date: 20011114
Docket: IMM-4652-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1231
Between:
YAN XU
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated August 10, 2000, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee, as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of China. She alleges that she was persecuted in China by reason of her religion, her political opinion and her anti-communist ideology. She arrived in Canada on March 25, 1998, and claimed refugee status on February 19, 1999.
[3] The Refugee Division did not believe the applicant. After reviewing the evidence, I am not satisfied that this specialized tribunal could not reasonably have concluded as it did
(see Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993), 160 N.R. 315, at pages 316 and 317).
[4] In this case, the applicant first submitted that the documentary evidence confirmed religious persecution in China. I am of the opinion that the determination by the Refugee Division on that point was reasonable, having regard to the objective evidence on which it relied at page 5 of its reasons:
To the alleged fact that the claimant professes to practicing Protestantism in houses, or house churches, exhibit A-13 states that as many as eighty million people do likewise and all are independent of government control. To such information, the tribunal does not believe that the claimant was persecuted due to her religious practice nor is she apt to be persecuted should she return to China and pursue her religious beliefs.
[5] Need we recall what the Federal Court of Appeal clearly stated in Zhou v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (July 18, 1994), A-492-91:
We are not persuaded that the Refugee Division made any error that would warrant our interference. The material relied on by the Board was properly adduced as evidence. The Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to that of the claimant. There is no general obligation on the Board to point out specifically any and all items of documentary evidence on which it might rely.
[6] Furthermore, the contradictions between the applicant's oral testimony and the written information set out in her Personal Information Form ("PIF") with respect to the reason she fled China and how she obtained a visa and passport are obvious. In her PIF, the applicant clearly stated that the reason she fled China was the following: "This continued persecution reinforced my decision to find a way to leave or escape from my country," but according to her testimony, at page 599 of the tribunal's record, she stated that she had come to Canada for purely job-related reasons. She also mentioned in her PIF that she had obtained her passport and visa herself; at the hearing, however, she contradicted herself when she said that her employer had done everything that was required. On several occasions, the board member gave the applicant the opportunity to explain herself, which she was unable to do.
[7] The Refugee Division also questioned the applicant regarding the delay in filing her claim for refugee status and regarding the inconsistency with respect to her marital status to give her the opportunity to explain the contradictions identified. In my view, the inferences drawn by the panel on that point were entirely justified.
[8] Moreover, in her testimony and in her PIF, the applicant admitted that she was attending a religious meeting when she was arrested. Adding that the police were authorized to arrest any person connected with illegal activities did not contradict the allegation that she had been targeted because she was attending a religious meeting. I am therefore of the view that the finding of non-credibility conclusion on this point is unjustified. That error alone, however, cannot suffice to justify the intervention of this Court, given the context of inconsistencies and implausibilities stated above.
[9] It is settled law that in matters of credibility and assessment of the facts, it is not for this Court to substitute its opinion for that of the administrative tribunal when, as in this case, the applicant has failed to prove that the impugned decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before the tribunal (see paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7).
[10] The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 14, 2001
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
Date: 20011114
Docket: IMM-4652-00
Ottawa, Ontario, the 14th day of November 2001
Present: The Honorable Pinard J.
Between:
YAN XU
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision by the Convention Refugee Determination Division dated August 10, 2000, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Sophie Debbané, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-4652-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: YAN XU v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 16, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 14, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Stéphanie Valois FOR THE APPLICANT
Marie-Nicole Moreau FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Stéphanie Valois
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT