Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20021031

Docket: IMM-65-02

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1129

Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2002

PRESENT:      The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson

BETWEEN:

                                                                 FENG LUAN GAO

                                                                                                                                                         Applicant

                                                                              - and -

                                                                     THE MINISTER

OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                     Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 The applicant, a citizen of China, alleges that she fled China because she could not practice the Tian Dao religion freely and because she was persecuted by the Chinese authorities for her participation in Tian Dao. She claimed Convention refugee status in Canada and by decision dated December 10, 2001, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) determined that she is not a Convention refugee. The applicant seeks judicial review of that decision.

  

[2]                 Despite the capable and articulate submissions of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the CRDD erred in its determination. The board found that the applicant was not credible. In its analysis, it explained in considerable detail its reasons for not believing her. It then noted that she had delayed in making her claim and that the documentary evidence was contrary to the evidence provided by her.

[3]                 Counsel for the applicant submits that the CRDD made various factual errors in its analysis, including consideration of irrelevant factors. I agree that there were some factual errors. However, the evidence, when considered in its totality, supports a conclusion that it was reasonably open to the CRDD to find that central aspects of the applicant's story were not credible.


[4]                 The applicant concedes that the crux of her argument is that the board failed to specifically refer to documentary evidence indicating that Tian Dao is an illegal religion in China and that worshippers are persecuted. She relies, in this respect, on a document that was cited by the CRDD in its decision. The applicant argues that the comments of a history professor and an assistant professor of East Asian religions, should have been specifically mentioned by the CRDD.    The difficulty with the applicant's argument is that the board's conclusions as to whether there has been Tian Dao activity in mainland China in recent years do not conflict with the professorial comments. The latter indicates that there may be some activity but there is no verification of any recent persecution. The CRDD concluded, in view of the Human Rights Watch information indicating that there had not been any mistreatment of Tian Dao followers recently, that there may not be serious Tian Dao activity still ongoing in China. The board did not, as alleged, deny that there may be some activity; it concluded that whatever activity may be ongoing was not of a nature serious enough to verify the claims of the applicant.

[5]                 It was for the CRDD to weigh the evidence and it did. The applicant's position, in essence, constitutes disagreement with the board's assessment of credibility and the weight it assigned to the evidence, neither of which afford a basis for the court's intervention. Evidence that followers of the Tian Dao were being persecuted in China today emanated from the applicant and the CRDD found that she was not credible. There is no documentary evidence, in the record, to establish that the Tian Dao followers are being persecuted in China. Thus, there exists no objective basis for fear of persecution based on religion.

[6]                 The application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel did not suggest a question for certification. No question is certified.

                                                                            ORDER

1.         The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.         No question is certified.

"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"      

line

J.F.C.C.                        


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                     IMM-65-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:     FENG LUAN GAO

Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                     Respondent

                                                                                   

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                        LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.

DATED:                                          THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2002

APPEARANCES:                           Mr. Hart Kaminker

                                                  

For the Applicant

       Ms. Jillian Siskind

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:     Hart A. Kaminker

                                                          Barrister and Solicitor

                                                         425 University Avenue

       Suite 500

       Toronto, Ontario

       M5G 1T6           

For the Applicant             

       Morris Rosenberg

       Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent


                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                  TRIAL DIVISION

  

Date: 20021031

Docket: IMM-65-02

BETWEEN:

FENG LUAN GAO

  

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.