Date: 20021122
Docket: IMM-1425-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1216
BETWEEN:
GUI LING DING
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] The applicant alleges that she fled her homeland China because of a fear of persecution arising from her activities as a Falun Gong practitioner. The Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (CRDD), now the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), by decision dated March 7, 2002, determined that the applicant 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 panel found that the applicant was not credible and that there was no subjective basis for her claim.
[3] The applicant's counsel submits that the CRDD made various factual errors in its analysis. I agree that the finding regarding the payment of the fine to the police was questionable as was the relevance of the date of issue of the applicant's passport. However, the evidence, when considered in its totality, does not justify the Court's intervention.
[4] There is no doubt that the Chinese regime is oppressive and that practitioners of Falun Gong have been subjected to serious injustices. The difficulty confronting the applicant is that the CRDD determined that her story could not be believed. The primary basis for its concern was the applicant's delay in leaving China. The applicant remained in her home for four months after the incident allegedly giving rise to her fear. The panel rejected her explanation that the government could find her wherever she went and so informed the applicant. She then stated that she did not want to get her family members in trouble. The panel also rejected this explanation. The panel then noted a number of inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's evidence before rejecting her explanation for the two-month delay in claiming refugee status after her arrival in Canada. The panel found the applicant's evidence to be evasive, exaggerated and indicative of fabrication rather than authenticity. The CRDD concluded that there was no subjective basis for the applicant's claim and that she was not credible.
[5] The standard of review with respect to the CRDD, a specialized tribunal, is patent unreasonableness, except with respect to statutory interpretation where the standard is correctness: Pushpanathan v. Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982. The CRDD has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony and as long as its inferences are not so unreasonable as to warrant the Court's intervention, the findings are not open to judicial review: Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.). The CRDD is not obliged to confront an applicant with its implausibility findings: Matarage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 460; Sarker v.Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 45 Imm. L.R. (2d) 209; Kahandani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1769.
[6] The applicant, in essence, asks that the Court substitute its opinion for that of the CRDD. That is not the Court's function. There does not exist, on the totality of the evidence, any error that would justify the Court's intervention. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[7] Counsel did not suggest a question for certification. This case raises no serious question of general importance. No question is certified.
(Sgd.) "Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.C.
Vancouver, B.C.
November 22, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1425-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: GUI LING DING v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: November 21, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: November 22, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Maureen Kirkpatrick For Applicant
Ms. Helen Park For Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Larson Boulton Sohn Stockholder For Applicant
Vancouver, B.C.
Morris Rosenberg For Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada