Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20060822

Docket: IMM-7102-05

Citation: 2006 FC 1013

Toronto, Ontario, August 22, 2006

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes

BETWEEN:

GUO QUAN YANG (a.k.a. Guoquan Yang)

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]               The Applicant Guo Quan Yang is a twenty-four year old single male national of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC).  He sought protection in Canada as a Convention refugee based on his membership in a particular social group, a practitioner of Falun Gong which is banned in the PRC.  His claim for protection was rejected by a decision of a Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated November 3, 2005.  The Applicant seeks judicial review by this Court of that decision.

[2]               The Applicant’s history, as presented to the Member, was that he suffered from pains in the joints possibly arthritis, a condition that was aggravated when he played basketball for his local school in China.  He stated that the medical treatment he sought proved to be ineffective; only when, at the suggestion of a friend, he sought relief through the practice of Falun Gong, was he able to alleviate his condition.  The Applicant said that he came to Canada where he continued in the practice of Falun Gong.  Since he has been in Canada the Applicant says that a friend in China was visited by PRC public security officers, the PSB, and tortured so as to force him to reveal the Applicant’s whereabouts.  The Applicant says that the PSB also visited his parents but without apparent serious incident.

[3]               The Member considered the Applicant’s submissions but found them not to be credible.  The Member found that the medical documents concerning the alleged arthritic condition submitted to support the claim were fraudulent and that the Applicant’s knowledge of basketball was quite minimal.  In all, the Member concluded that the Applicant did not suffer the injuries claimed as a result of basketball, nor did he commence practicing Falun Gong in China.  The Member concluded that the Applicant began practicing Falun Gong in Canada as a matter of convenience in order to advance his claim for protection as a Convention refugee.  With this in mind, the Member considered whether there would be a serious risk to the Applicant’s life or risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment or torture if the Applicant were to return to China.  The Member concluded that there was no such risk.  He found that the PSB probably already knew that the Applicant was out of the country and in Canada and that their treatment of his parents was benign.  He concluded that the Applicant was not being sought by the PSB for any reason.

[4]               The Applicant, in this Court, submits that the Member’s findings cannot withstand scrutiny.  The Applicant points out that the questioning of the Applicant as to his knowledge of basketball was confounded by the interpreter’s inabilities, not the Applicant’s, as to terms used in the sport.  The Applicant also points out that scepticism expressed by the Member as to the genuineness of the medical reports arose not from the reports themselves, which were in Chinese, but the interpreter’s version of the reports.  I agree that these criticisms are valid, however, these criticisms do not affect the main issue.

[5]               The main issue before the Member was clearly expressed by him in his reasons, namely, does the Applicant’s practice of Falun Gong, whether it began in China, or later in Canada, put him at risk.   The Member concluded it would not.  On that issue the Member considered the Applicant’s evidence as to the PSB and their dealings with his friend and his parents in China.  Counsel for the Applicant submits that this risk finding is not founded on the evidence that was before the Member.   However, it is for the Member to weigh the evidence.  The Court may only interfere if the Board’s findings are patently unreasonable.  That is, where there was clearly no credible evidence upon which the Member could have came to the conclusions expressed in the evidence.  Here there is credible evidence upon which the Member could have come to the conclusions stated and, while there was other evidence to the contrary, it is for the Member to weigh the evidence and arrive at the conclusions expressed in the Reasons.  I am not persuaded, in considering the decision as a whole, this Court should intervene and set aside the Member’s decision. 

[6]        The application is therefore dismissed without costs.  Counsel for the Applicant and Respondent both submit there is no question for certification and I also find there is no question that should be certified.

JUDGMENT

UPON application made to this Court on the 22^nd day of August, 2006, for judicial review of a decision of a Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated November 3, 2005, wherein the Applicant’s claim for Convention refugee protection was rejected;

            AND UPON reviewing the Records filed herein and hearing submission from counsel for the parties;

            AND for the Reasons provided herewith;

            THIS COURT ADJUDGES that

1.                  The application is dismissed;

2.                  There is no question for certification; and

3.                  There is no order as to costs.

“Roger T. Hughes”

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-7102-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          Guo Quan Yang (a.k.a. Guoquan Yang)

                                                            v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                      August 22, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT:                          HUGHES J.

DATED:                                             August 22, 2006

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: