Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20020123

Docket: IMM-1048-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 71

BETWEEN:

                                                                     HOU FU WANG

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

LUTFY A.C.J.

[1]                 Despite the able presentation by his counsel, I am satisfied the applicant has failed to establish any reviewable error in the Refugee Division's determination that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence to support his claim to be a Convention refugee.

[2]                 The applicant is a citizen of China who fears persecution because of his religious practice of Tian Dao.

[3]                 While on a business trip in Canada in August 1999, the applicant states he learned from his wife during a telephone exchange that he was charged with organizing a religious temple. She advised that he should not return to China.

[4]                 A review of the transcript of the refugee hearing supports the panel's negative credibility findings. The applicant's responses were vague and contradictory concerning the employment dismissal letter he alleged to have received at his home in China while he was in Canada. There were similar significant inconsistencies when the applicant attempted to explain the plight of his fellow practitioners of Tian Dao religion in China.

[5]                 The panel also found implausible the applicant's failure to include in his personal information form, until an amendment made on the day of the hearing, that he was being sought by the Public Security Bureau. Similarly, the panel questioned the plausibility of the applicant's testimony that the P.S.B. visited his family residence every fifteen days without suspecting his wife's alleged practice in Tian Dao.

[6]                 None of the panel's findings of implausibility was patently unreasonable, the standard of review both counsel agreed was applicable to this proceeding. This approach is fully consistent with the statement of the Court of Appeal in Aguebor v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (at paragraph 4):

There is no longer any doubt that the Refugee Division, which is a specialized tribunal, has complete jurisdiction to determine the plausibility of testimony: who is in a better position than the Refugee Division to gauge the credibility of an account and to draw the necessary inferences? As long as the inferences drawn by the tribunal are not so unreasonable as to warrant our intervention, its findings are not open to judicial review.

[7]                 In my view, the panel's reasons for decision concerning its credibility and implausibility findings are clear and supported by an examination of the transcript of the applicant's testimony. For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.

                                                                                                                                                   "Allan Lutfy"                

                                                                                                                                                            A.C.J.

Ottawa, Ontario

January 23, 2002