Date: 20031003
Docket: IMM-5003-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1141
Ottawa, Ontario, this 3rd day of October, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
BU HONG YANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Bu Hong Yang claimed refugee status in Canada based on his alleged fear of persecution in China as a follower of Tian Dao. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board found no merit in his claim - it said that Mr. Yang's testimony appeared to be a "poorly memorized fictional rendition".
[2] Mr. Yang argues that the Board made three serious errors and asks for a new hearing. I can find no error in the Board's evaluation of Mr. Yang's claim and, therefore, must dismiss his application for judicial review.
[3] First, Mr. Yang suggests that the Board unreasonably discounted his testimony based on his demeanour as a witness. The Board found that Mr. Yang was uncomfortable and hesitant when testifying about matters at the core of his claim and more sure of himself when discussing less critical subjects. In my view, while it must do so cautiously, the Board may consider an applicant's manner of testifying when weighing all of the evidence before it. Here, the Board took Mr. Yang's demeanour into account but did not emphasize it unduly. It was certainly not the main basis for dismissing Mr. Yang's claim. Nor, looking at the reasons as a whole, was it a particularly significant factor.
[4] Next, Mr. Yang argues that the Board erred when it found part of his story implausible. Mr. Yang had testified that Tian Dao services were held in temples within the homes of its followers. Each home, he said, had a permanent altar. The Board considered documentary evidence about Tian Dao and thought it unlikely that practitioners of a banned religion would erect permanent altars that could easily be discovered. It also wondered why Mr. Yang would expose his mother, with whom he lived, to the risk that might flow from the discovery of a permanent altar in their home. The Board asked Mr. Yang about these matters and did not find his answers to be satisfactory.
[5] A Board's conclusions about the plausibility of a claimant's story are more susceptible to scrutiny on judicial review than its other credibility findings: Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 776, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1131 (QL) (T.D.) and Divsalar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 653, [2002] F.C.J. No. 875 (QL) (T.D.). However, where, as here, the Board based its findings on the evidence, provided the applicant with an opportunity to address its concerns, and explained in its reasons why it was dissatisfied with the applicant's answers, there is no basis for interfering with the Board's conclusion.
[6] Finally, Mr. Yang submits that the Board did not adequately explain its finding that his evidence was contradictory. The Board mentioned three areas where Mr. Yang's testimony was inconsistent to the point of unreliability: in respect of the names he provided of fellow worshippers; the date of a raid by security forces on a temple; and his description of the historical origins of Tian Dao. I have reviewed the record in these areas and cannot conclude that the Board's assessment of Mr. Yang's evidence was unreasonable. Mr. Yang contradicted himself on several occasions. The Board gave him ample opportunity to clarify matters, but his efforts to do so were unconvincing. In the circumstances, the Board's reasons were adequate.
[7] I cannot conclude that the Board erred in its evaluation of Mr. Yang's claim and, therefore, must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-5003-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: BU HONG YANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Ms. Vania Campana
FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Mielka Visnic
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms. Vania Campana
Lewis & Associates
290 Gerrard Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 2G4 FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT