OTTAWA, ONTARIO, October 16, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification.)
[1] Di Lu (the “Applicant”), is a citizen of China who came to Canada on June 21, 2000, with a student visa that was valid until September 30, 2002. The visa was later extended to October 30, 2005. He has resided in Canada since that time. While in Canada, he alleges that he became a Falun Gong (“FG”) practitioner in September 2003, he had protested before the Chinese consulate, and he had publicly spread “the truth” of FG to every Chinese person he has met via the telephone, the internet or the fax.
[2] He believes that the Chinese authorities know about his activities in Canada and thus, he is at risk if he returned to China. Allegedly on April 18, 2005, officers attended his home in China in order to question his parents about him spreading the message of FG through the internet. He was warned to stop and if he did not cease his activities, his parents were told they would be arrested in his place.
[3] The Board rejected his claim, finding he lacked credibility as he could not:
a) Recite the verses of FG correctly;
b) Missed a movement when performing FG; and
c) Did not know the significance of January 23, 2001, for FG followers.
[4] The Applicant is seeking to set the Board’s decision aside by way of judicial review by arguing two points:
a) Large portions of the transcript of the Board hearing are inaudible, therefore, the reasonableness of the Board’s decision cannot be adequately determined; and
b) The Board made unreasonable assumptions when testing whether the Applicant was a FG practitioner.
[5] There is no dispute that the appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness (see Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)).
[6] In my view this application cannot succeed for the following reasons.
[7] Defective transcript: While the transcript has several large gaps, it is clear enough with respect to the three key findings. Particularly his ignorance regarding the importance of January 23, 2001, for FG practitioners (a date when FG members immolated themselves on Tiananmen Square) undermines his credibility. The transcript is clear in this respect. Furthermore, the Applicant introduced e-mails and messages wherein he discussed January 23, 2001. It was open to the Board to make a finding of negative credibility given his inability to describe the importance of this date to FG practitioners.
[8] Unreasonable assumptions: I fail to see why it was patently unreasonable for the Board to expect the Applicant, as an alleged FG member, to know the verses and movements of FG by heart. The documentary evidence before the Board clearly establishes that FG members recite such verses and perform such rituals hundreds of times. This has been upheld as a valid probe by the Board to determine the genuineness of the Applicant’s testimony in other FG cases (see Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1140). There was no need for the Board to refer specific documentary evidence as the Applicant alleges. The Board is deemed to have read the documentary evidence before it (see Townsend v. (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 371).
[9] Accordingly this application cannot succeed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6250-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: Di Lu
v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 11, 2006
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER: von FINCKENSTEIN J.
DATED: October 16, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Joel Etienne |
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
|
|
|
Ms. Ladan Shahrooz
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Joel Etienne Toronto, Ontario |
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
|
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |