Docket: IMM-6339-04
Citation: 2005 FC 578
Vancouver, British Columbia, Tuesday, the 26th day of April, 2005
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE von FINCKENSTEIN
BETWEEN:
LAN YING CHEN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Orally delivered from the Bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)
[1] The Applicant, Lan Ying Chen, is a 22 year-old citizen of the People's Republic of China ("China"). On June 20, 2002, the Applicant became involved with a religious movement called Tie Shan. She learned a few weeks later that the police had arrested several members of the organization, beat them and put them in jail. The Applicant claims the police went to her home looking for her and had identified her from a cloth she had signed at the temple with her name and residential address when she joined the movement. Fearing prosecution by the police, she hid and finally fled the country. She came to Canada via Thailand, France, Germany and Taiwan. She entered Canada with a false Singaporean passport in the company of a professional people smuggler. They posed as a couple and only when the fake passport was exposed did she claim refugee status.
[2] The Board denied the claim finding her credibility an issue as:
- She only declared herself to be a refugee when the false passport was exposed;
- Her mother, upon being questioned, did not substantiate her story;
- Her story about religious persecution was concocted;
- No reference regarding Tie Shan could be found by the Board's research directorate; and
- She failed to seek asylum in France or Germany where she spent some time, thus negating her subjective fear.
[3] The Applicant argues that the Board's credibility findings cannot be sustained as:
(a) It should not be held against her that the came on a false passport and and did not disclose her true identity immediately for fear of being arrested. She relies on Surrujpal v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1985), 60 N.R. 73 (C.A.);
(b) Her mother's testimony was confused, but did not contradict her own testimony.
(c) New religions spring up all the time in China; the fact that the research directorate could not find Tie Shan does not mean it does not exist; and
(d) The fact that she did not seek asylum in Germany is not evidence of subjective fear; she had been misinformed by her aunt that those countries do not respect human rights.
[4] It is undisputed by both sides that the standard of review for findings of credibility is patent unreasonableness (see Umba v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 17).
[5] Upon examining the record, it is clear to me that the core findings that the Board relied on were the contradiction between the mother's testimony and her own. Her mother's testimony was not confusing, the transcript of her interview establishes clearly that:
(i) The mother does not know who is seeking her daughter, only that someone is;
(ii) She believes her daughter to be Christian and never has heard of Tie Shan;
(iii) She believes her daughter is in Canada to seek a better life, not to escape persecution or seek religious freedom.
On the basis of these findings, it was not patently unreasonable for the Board to find that the Applicant's story lacked credibility.
[6] The findings regarding the false passport and lack of open disclosure were really peripheral to the main finding. Such peripheral findings are fully consistent with existing jurisprudence. See R.K.L. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 162 at paragraph 11.
[7] As far as the existence of Tie Shan is concerned, the onus is on the Applicant to establish her claim. The Applicant here, through her testimony (which was found not to be credible) or through documentary evidence, failed to establish the existence of Tie Shan or her adherence thereto. Given the result of the research directorate's inquiry, the Board's finding cannot be considered patently unreasonable.
[8] Finally, the Applicant took a very long, expensive and time consuming way (four months) to get from China to Canada. She stayed in four countries on her journey, yet failed to claim asylum in any one. I see nothing patently unreasonable in the Board making a negative inference from this lack of seeking asylum.
[9] Accordingly, this application will not succeed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.
(Sgd.) "K. von Finckenstein"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6339-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: LAN YING CHEN
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: April 26, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: von FINCKENSTEIN J.
DATED: April 26, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Larry Smeets for Applicant
Ms. Helen Park for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Smeets Law Offices for Applicant
Vancouver, BC
John H. Sims, Q.C. for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada