Toronto, Ontario, February 22, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Ms. Weng, a 22-year-old citizen of the People's Republic of China, claimed protection in Canada under section 96 (Convention refugee) and subsection 97(1) (person in need of protection) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA). On October 8, 2004, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board found that she was not credible and it dismissed her claim. She seeks judicial review of that decision.
[2] Ms. Weng's counsel argues that the board reached for inconsistencies in the evidence and engaged in speculation in order to arrive at its negative credibility findings. Despite counsel's articulate submissions, I am not persuaded that the RPD so erred or that my intervention is warranted.
[3] Ms. Weng claims to have joined the Christian religion, in China, on May 6, 2001. Church services allegedly took place in various members' homes. Ms. Weng states that she was a regular attendee and received her Bible from the church organizer. She was baptized on December 9, 2001, during one of four visits from the pastor.
[4] At a service on December 25, 2002, lookouts warned the members that the Public Security Bureau (PSB) officers were approaching. Ms. Weng allegedly fled through the backdoor, leaving her Bible behind, and ran for 20 minutes down a small street. Upon reaching the main route, she hailed a taxi and went to her aunt's home where she remained in hiding. She claims that on a number of occasions, the PSB visited her parents' home to arrest her. The PSB allegedly informed them that the other church members had been arrested. Ms. Weng came to Canada in January 2003 and made her claim upon arrival.
[5] The RPD determined that Ms. Weng had not provided sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that she was a member of an underground church. The RPD also found, on a balance of probabilities, that the raid did not occur and that Ms. Weng was not being sought by the PSB. Its findings were based on a number of inconsistencies and implausibilities with respect to her testimony. The primary findings related to:
· the inconsistency regarding the date that Ms. Weng began practising Christianity;
· the inconsistency (regarding her residence) between her personal information form (PIF) and the port of entry (POE) notes;
· the implausibility of her account of the raid and her escape;
· the implausibility of her account of the return of her Bible in light of her evidence that all members of the group had been arrested and in light of the risk that would have to be assumed by a non-member to retrieve the Bible (which could be repurchased in a bookstore in China) and return it;
· the inconsistency in Ms. Weng's testimony regarding the note found in her Bible;
· the inconsistency between her knowledge of the Christian religion and the reasonable knowledge that would be expected of one who attended the Chinese Gospel Church.
[6] Findings of credibility are findings of fact and, as such, are to be reviewed on a standard of patent unreasonableness. The board's findings, in my view, are not patently unreasonable. Moreover, if the standard of review were the more stringent standard of reasonableness simpliciter, I would nonetheless conclude that the board's findings are reasonably open to it.
[7] I have carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing and I agree with Ms. Weng that the first- noted inconsistency was, in all likelihood, the result of confusion. However, the board recognized and specifically dealt with this issue at page 3 of its reasons. The RPD noted that, in other circumstances, it might accept the claimant's explanation, but because of the totality of the evidence, in this case, it did not. It is not my function to second guess the board's determination under such circumstances. In any event, the RPD's ultimate conclusion did not turn on one single factor; it turned on the totality of the evidence.
[8] The RPD is obliged to have regard to the whole of the evidence. The findings in this matter were based upon the evidence adduced by Ms. Weng. She was notified of the board's concerns and was provided with ample opportunity to respond to them. Her responses were vague, evasive, misleading, implausible, or inconsistent with earlier testimony.
[9] Ms. Weng's counsel has formidably provided a number of alternative suppositions, but they are, for the most part, without an evidentiary foundation. In all other respects, they simply constitute a view differing from that of the board. The specific areas, which counsel characterizes as speculation by the board, are in reality the application of common sense.
[10] Matters of credibility fall within the purview of the RPD. Absent reviewable error, and none exists here, the findings of the board in this respect are insulated from review. The crux of Ms. Weng's position is that she disagrees with the board's determination. That is her right, but it does not follow that the decision should be set aside for that reason. The findings of the RPD in this matter are neither patently, nor otherwise, unreasonable.
[11] Counsel did not suggest a question for certification and none arises in this matter.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for judicial review is dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9288-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: FENG WENG
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 21, 2006
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
APPEARANCES:
Alexis Singer
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Levine Associates
Toronto, Ontario FOR APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENT