Ottawa, Ontario, June 13, 2006
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Refugee Protection Division did not believe that the applicant, a citizen of China, is a practitioner of Falun Gong. I have not been persuaded that the negative Convention refugee determination discloses any reviewable error.
[2] The applicant relies on three particular findings of fact to demonstrate that the tribunal's determination was patently unreasonable. He also argues that the tribunal breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in not providing a reasonable opportunity to present the refugee claim.
[3] First, the applicant challenges the tribunal's finding that his hukou was "a newly-minted document and not one dating from 1998". The member stated his reasons as follows:
None of the pages are faded with age. There is no ambient dust threads, hairs, or any other fine detritus to be found under the inside plastic cover, as I would reasonably expect to find in a used, seven-year-old document. The claimant's explanation for this was that the document was carefully stored. But, at least the last item - dust and other ambient material under the inside plastic cover - would gravitate there from static electricity, no matter how carefully the document were used or stored. Yet it was clear of all foreign matter.
[4] Counsel for the applicant acknowledged that he was unaware of any mechanism that could otherwise verify the authenticity of the hukou in the absence of any security features on the identity document. He was also satisfied that the original document need not be produced in this proceeding.
[5] The applicant also disputes the tribunal's finding of implausibility that the Chinese police would contact him while he was in Canada to seek his assistance concerning their criminal investigation of the activities of other Falun Gong practitioners. According to the applicant, the Chinese police communicated with him by telephone and promised that they would allow his return to Canada if he spent some time with them in China to assist in their investigation.
[6] The applicant questions a third finding of fact. The tribunal referred in its reasons to the applicant's "lack of knowledge" of the highly publicized self-immolations staged by the government party on January 23, 2001 in Beijing. In fact, approximately ten questions after he was first asked whether anything unusual occurred in 2001, the applicant eventually stated: "... they said those kind of people putting themselves on fire, those were meant to deceive people." Since the applicant did eventually refer to the government's propaganda campaign in his response, the tribunal's reference to his "lack of knowledge" is inaccurate.
[7] In my view, however, the applicant has not established any reviewable error with respect to these three issues, even when they are considered cumulatively. It was open to the tribunal to rule as it did concerning the authenticity of the hukou and the plausibility of Chinese police authorities seeking the applicant's assistance. The inaccuracy in the finding concerning the applicant's knowledge of the self-immolations does not warrant the Court's intervention.
[8] Also, the applicant's focus on the three specific issues does not address the tribunal's principal conclusion that his testimony was evasive. The respondent's counsel ably relied upon several passages in the transcript to support the finding of evasiveness and his submissions remain substantially unanswered. During the refugee hearing, the applicant's counsel himself was required to admonish his client that: "You're not answering me again."
[9] Finally, I am satisfied that the applicant's refugee hearing was a fair one. It was perhaps ill-considered for the member to warn the applicant against evasion early in the hearing. However, after being challenged by the applicant's counsel that his intervention was unfair, the presiding member acknowledged the objection, repeated his question and allowed the applicant to respond fully as he originally intended. Again, on my review of the transcript, there is no merit to the suggestion that this refugee hearing was procedurally unfair.
[10] For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question and none will be certified.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7447-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHU GUO DAI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006
DATED: JUNE 13, 2006
Mr. Iven Tse FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Jonathan Shapiro FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Iven Tse
Barrister and Solicitor
Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. John H. Sims, Q.c.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT