Ottawa, Ontario, June 21, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] Mr. Zhao Jia Chen claimed refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of religious persecution in China as a Roman Catholic. He maintains that the house church he was attending in Guangdong was raided by the Public Security Bureau [PSB] in 2009. He managed to escape and went into hiding. Mr. Chen also contends that other congregants were arrested, and the PSB was looking for him, too. As a result, he fled China and claimed refugee status in Canada.
[2] A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied Mr. Chen’s claim mainly because his account of events was not borne out by documentary evidence about the treatment of Roman Catholics in Guangdong. Mr. Chen submits that the Board’s decision was unreasonable. It wrongly rejected his testimony simply because it was not corroborated by the documentary evidence. He asks me to quash the Board’s decision and order a new hearing.
[3] In my view, the Board’s treatment of Mr. Chen’s evidence was not unreasonable. The documentary evidence did not show that Roman Catholics are persecuted in Guangdong. The Board was entitled to rely on that evidence in reaching its conclusion that Mr. Chen’s refugee claim was not made out. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
[4]
The
sole issue is whether the Board’s decision was unreasonable.
II. The Board’s Decision
[5] The Board noted that the documentary evidence indicated that police authorities in China often leave a summons or arrest warrant with the family or friends of a suspect. However, there was no evidence that they had done so in Mr. Chen’s case.
[6] Further, other documentary evidence showed that Catholics are persecuted in some areas of China. Practices vary from region to region. In Guangdong, according to some sources, authorities are quite tolerant. Further, given that there was evidence of persecution of Catholics in more remote areas of China, one would have expected that any mistreatment in Guangdong would have been documented. Further, most incidents of persecution involved bishops and priests, not ordinary practitioners.
[7]
Based
on this evidence, the Board concluded that the PSB had not raided Mr. Chen’s
house church and were not pursuing him. In addition, while the Board accepted
that Mr. Chen was a genuine Catholic, it found that he would not face a serious
possibility of persecution or a substantial risk of cruel and unusual treatment
or punishment if he practised his faith in Guangdong.
III. Was the Board’s Decision Unreasonable?
[8] Mr. Chen argues that the Board erred when it found that the PSB would likely have issued a summons or warrant if it was truly interested in him. Further, he contends that the Board erred by failing to make any specific finding that his testimony was not credible. Instead, the Board merely compared his version of events with the documentary evidence and concluded that his testimony was improbable. These errors, Mr. Chen claims, lead the Board to render an unreasonable decision.
[9] In my view, given the evidence before it, the Board’s decision was not unreasonable.
[10] The evidence regarding issuance of a summons or warrant was equivocal. It showed that this is a common practice, but that procedures varied across China. The Board considered Mr. Chen’s evidence that the PSB had made numerous inquiries about him and had arrested other members of his church and concluded that, in these circumstances, it is likely that the PSB would have left a summons or warrant with Mr. Chen’s family. That was not an unreasonable finding on the evidence.
[11] Regarding the credibility finding, the Board is entitled to weigh the evidence before it, including the documentary evidence, and must determine whether the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution or a substantial risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Here, the Board was not satisfied that Mr. Chen had met that burden. It found that Mr. Chen’s testimony about the raid, the PSB’s activities, and the arrests of others was inconsistent with the objective documentary evidence. This was a sufficient basis for discounting Mr. Chen’s testimony. It was unnecessary for the Board to give further reasons for doubting Mr .Chen’s credibility.
[12] In any case, the documentary evidence showed that it was unlikely that Mr. Chen would face persecution on his return to China. His claim was simply not supported by evidence about the current conditions in Guangdong.
[13] Therefore, I cannot conclude that the Board’s decision was unreasonable. It fell within the range of defensible outcomes based on the facts and the law.
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[14] The Board considered and weighed the evidence before it and concluded that Mr. Chen’s claim had not been made out. That conclusion was not unreasonable in light of the documentary evidence about the situation in Guangdong. 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.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4826-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: ZHAO JIA CHEN
v
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 22, 2012
APPEARANCES:
|
|
|
|
Jessica Norman
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
|
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|