Vancouver, British Columbia, October 11, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mei Ying Shi claims to fear persecution in China because her son is allegedly a Falun Gong practitioner wanted by the Chinese Public Security Bureau. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected her claim finding that her evidence was not credible and that she had not established that the PSB had any interest in her son. Moreover, the Board also found that the country condition information before it did not demonstrate that family members of Falun Gong followers were themselves at risk of persecution in China.
[2] The applicant now seeks judicial review of this decision asserting that the Board erred by attributing insufficient weight to the fact that she is uneducated and unsophisticated, in assessing her testimony. The applicant says that the Board also erred in failing to give the appropriate weight to documentary evidence emanating from Falun Gong sources indicating that family members of Falun Gong practitioners do indeed face a risk of persecution in China.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Board did not commit a reviewable error in its assessment of the applicant’s evidence. As a consequence, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
I. Analysis
[4] The principal focus of the applicant’s attack on the Board’s credibility finding is the alleged failure of the Board to properly take into account her lack of education and sophistication. In support of this assertion, the applicant points to the fact that she is a 63 year-old widow, with absolutely no formal education, who had spent her life living in a Chinese village working on a farm.
[5] However, a review of the Board’s decision demonstrates that the Board member was acutely aware of the vulnerabilities of the applicant and took these into account in her assessment of the evidence. In this regard, it should be noted that the analysis portion of the decision begins with the following statement by the Board member:
The panel is cognizant of the difficulties faced by the claimant in establishing her claim, including cultural factors, the milieu of the hearing room and the stress inherent in responding to oral questions. The claimant is uneducated and unsophisticated.
[6] In light of this, there is simply no basis on which to find that the member was not sufficiently alert, alive and sensitive to the applicant’s vulnerabilities in assessing her evidence.
[7] Moreover, the Board found that the applicant’s claim that her son was being sought by the PSB, lacked credibility. This finding was based on a number of inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence on points that related to central aspects of her claim. These included inconsistent information as to when the applicant’s son began practicing Falun Gong, and when it was that he called her to tell her that he was going into hiding.
[8] Similarly, the applicant’s evidence as to who had told her that family members of Falun Gong supporters were being targeted by the PSB was not consistent, nor was her evidence as to when this discussion allegedly took place.
[9] The Board also found it implausible that at no time in the 14 months that had passed between the time that her son allegedly called her to tell her that he was going into hiding and the hearing did the applicant make any inquiries as to the well-being of her son and his family.
[10] In a similar vein, the Board found it implausible that the applicant had not made any attempt to ascertain the condition of the family home, which had supposedly been sealed up by the authorities. In my view, there was a reasonable basis in the record for the Board’s implausibility findings.
[11] Given that the Board did not believe the applicant’s claim that her son was wanted by the PSB because of his involvement with Falun Gong, it is unnecessary to consider whether the Board erred in its assessment of the risk posed to family members of Falun Gong. Similarly, the issue of the standard of proof required to establish the existence of such also does not arise.
II. Conclusion
[12] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
III. Certification
[13] Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7763-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: MEI YING SHI v.MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 5, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: MACTAVISH J.
APPEARANCES:
Asha Gafar FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Levine Associates FOR APPLICANT
Toronto, ON
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT