Date: 20040309
Docket: IMM-2542-03
Citation: 2004 FC 348
Ottawa, Ontario, this 9th of March 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
ZHOU HUI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Hui Zhou came to Canada from China in November 2001. She claimed refugee status here on the basis that she was persecuted by state authorities who were cracking down on the Falun Gong movement. She was not an adherent of Falun Gong, but she says she sold materials to the movement's supporters from her small shop in Anshan. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed her claim in 2003. The Board disbelieved many of the allegations put forward by Ms. Zhou, including her claim that she had been detained for several months. It also found that her description of the conduct of state authorities was implausible.
[2] Ms. Zhou's main argument was that the Board erred when it discounted her claim that security authorities repeatedly imposed fines on her for distributing Falun Gong materials but did not actually force her to close her business. The Board found it unlikely that the authorities would give her so much latitude given their strong antipathy toward the Falun Gong movement. The Board cited documentary evidence indicating that authorities would likely shut down, not tolerate, a business involved in distributing Falun Gong materials.
[3] I cannot fault the Board's analysis of the evidence and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[4] Ms. Zhou argues that the Board placed undue emphasis on, and drew unwarranted conclusions from, certain documentary evidence. That evidence addressed the question whether security forces often compel businesses supportive of the Falun Gong movement to close. According to the Board's analysis, that evidence contradicted her claim that she simply received successive fines for her activities.
II. Analysis
[5] Credibility findings, particularly conclusions about a claimant's truthfulness, lie to a large extent with the Board. The Court may only intervene if the Board's findings are clearly out of keeping with the evidence before it or are inadequately explained. However, when the Board finds that a scenario presented by a claimant is implausible, the Court may review that finding with greater care and scrutiny. The Court is often just as capable as the Board at deciding whether a particular scenario or series of events described by the claimant might reasonably have occurred: Divsalar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 FCT 653, [2002] F.C.J. No. 875 (QL) (T.D.)
[6] Here, Ms. Zhou told the Board that she received a series of fine notices in 2000 and 2001 for distributing Falun Gong materials, even though she stopped selling those materials in 1999. Those charges resulted, she believed, from Falun Gong supporters naming her as a supplier of their materials. The Board concluded it was unlikely that authorities would simply keep imposing fines on her instead of taking "the action completely open and available to them, that is, to cancel her business licence, to set aside the rental agreement she held with one of the city's departments and close the shop".
[7] In arriving at that conclusion, the Board referred to two research documents. The first stated that Chinese authorities had shut down "a number of publishing houses, wholesalers and retail outlets" after its crackdown on Falun Gong. The second, an opinion from a Chinese lawyer, expressed the view that authorities might well cancel the license of a print shop that violated the law by producing contraband materials.
[8] The Board concluded from these documents that authorities had the power to close down Ms. Zhou's business and, in the circumstances, probably would have done so. It found that it was implausible that "she would have been able to continue operating with these accusations and penalties made against her".
[9] I have reviewed the documents relied on by the Board and cannot find any fault with the conclusions it drew from them.
[10] In a similar vein, Ms. Zhou also argued that the Board ignored her evidence that she had stopped selling Falun Gong materials in 1999. Clearly, the Board rejected her testimony on that issue. It found that, on their face, the police notices appeared to refer to events that were contemporaneous with her alleged violations of the law; they did not refer to past violations. Since it did not believe that her shop could continue to remain open after so many violations, it found that the fine notices were fabricated. Again, I cannot conclude that the Board's conclusion on this issue was unreasonable or out of keeping with the evidence.
[11] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2542-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ZHOU HUI V. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: December 3, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
DATED: March 9, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Nora Ng FOR THE APPLICANT
Kim Shane FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ELGIN, CANNON & ASSOCIATES FOR THE APPLICANT
Vancouver, British Columbia
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada