Date: 20010321
Docket: IMM-2996-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 214
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
- and -
DAN LIN
Respondent
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Division (the Board) dated May 8, 2000, wherein the latter determined that Ms. Dan Lin (the respondent) was a Convention refugee.
[2] The respondent was born in the People's Republic of China on January 12, 1983, and she is a citizen of that country.
[3] The respondent left China on June 13, 1999, on board a ship and she arrived in Canada on August 13, 1999. Upon apprehension by the immigration authorities, the respondent made a claim to be a Convention refugee.
[4] The respondent claimed in her Personal Information Form (PIF) to have a well-founded fear of persecution in China on the basis of her perceived political opinion and membership in a particular social group, being a member of a poor peasant family from Fujian province.
[5] However, at the hearing, the respondent claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in China on the basis of her membership in a particular social group, being a minor (female) child forced into a marriage against her will.
[6] The Board determined that the respondent had a well founded fear of persecution on the basis that her father had forced her to enter into marriage and there was no state protection available to her. This decision is subject to the present application for judicial review.
[7] The respondent's claim involved a father with a history of abuse who maintains the household registration in which the respondent remains registered. Given these circumstances and considering the respondent's testimony, her mother's corroboration that she would be hurt if returned, and the expert's evidence on child abuse, I am satisfied that it was reasonably open to the Board to conclude that the respondent had a well-founded fear of persecution.
[8] The applicant submits that the Board failed to consider internal flight alternative. I disagree. The Board found that the father's possession of the household registration created insurmountable barriers to the relocation within China. This is a question of fact and based on this evidence this finding was reasonably open to the Board.
[9] The applicant further submits that the Board failed to adequately consider state protection. After a careful review of the evidence, I am convinced that there was clear and convincing evidence before the tribunal to establish that the state protection was not available to the respondent.
[10] First, the respondent testified that the Chinese authorities would not protect her from her father because the government does not deal with that sort of thing.[1]
[11] Second, expert evidence and country documentation confirms that there are serious deficiencies which exist in China's protection of the rights of children and also confirms, that children being considered the property of the parents can be disciplined by the parents with little or no interference from authorities.
[12] For these reasons, I am satisfied that the Board properly concluded that the respondent does have a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to China.
[13] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Danielle Tremblay-Lamer"
Judge
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
March 21, 2001.