Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content






Date: 20010301


Docket: IMM-1832-00


Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 133



BETWEEN:


LIANJUN SHI

Applicant



- and -




THE MINISTER OF

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent



     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

HENEGHAN J.


[1]      Mr. Lianjun Shi (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (the "Board"). In its decision dated March 22, 2000 the Board determined that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee.

[2]      The Applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. He entered Canada at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 8, 1999, holding a Canadian Visitor's Visa. He allegedly came to Canada on a business trip. On March 22, 1999 the Applicant applied for refugee status on the grounds of fear of persecution by the government of China on the basis of his perceived political opinions and activities.

[3]      The Applicant testified before the Board. Oral reasons were delivered following the hearing. These reasons were later transcribed in writing. The Board rejected the Applicant's claim on the basis of credibility.

[4]      The Applicant now argues that the decision of the Board is flawed and raises the following issues:

Did the tribunal err in failing to provide adequate reasons for its adverse findings of credibility?
Did the tribunal err in basing its decision on unreasonable speculation?

[5]      In my opinion, the arguments concerning the adequacy of the Board's reasons are misplaced. The Board found that the Applicant's evidence was not credible. There is sufficient evidence in the certified Tribunal Record to support that conclusion.

[6]      The Board directed its mind to the issue of risk of persecution should the Applicant be returned to China. It reached the conclusion that he did not. The Board's decision is supported not by speculation, but by the evidence.

[7]      It is inappropriate for the Court to interfere with findings of credibility made by the Board when there is evidence to support those findings; see Dhak v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (January 26, 1998, 88-A-316.)


ORDER

[8]      The application for judicial review is dismissed.

[9]      There is no question for certification arising from this application.


                                 "E. Heneghan"

     J.F.C.C.

Toronto, Ontario

March 1, 2001
















FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                      IMM-1832-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  LIANJUN SHI

    

         Applicant

     - and -

    

    

                         THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                         AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

                                            

DATE OF HEARING:              WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                  HENEGHAN J.

                            

DATED:                      THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2001

APPEARANCES BY:              Ms. R. Senjule
                             For the Applicant
                         Mr. Stephen H. Gold

    

                             For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Regina Senjule

                         Barrister & Solicitor

                         410-45 Sheppard Ave. E

                         North York, Ontario

                         M2N 5W9

                             For the Applicant
                         Morris Rosenberg

                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                             For the Respondent

                         FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 20010301

                                    

         Docket: IMM-1832-00

                         Between:

                         LIANJUN SHI

    

         Applicant

    

    

     - and -

    

    

                         THE 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.