Date: 20050413
Docket: IMM-4950-04
Citation: 2005 FC 495
Ottawa, Ontario, April 13, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLANCHARD
BETWEEN:
CHANG FA WANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Chang Fa Wang is a citizen of the Peoples' Republic of China who claims protection and refugee protection. His claim is based upon his fear of being physically harmed and tortured because of his political opinion expressed and published in a certain article he wrote while in Canada.
[2] The Applicant came to Canada in 1992 to pursue studies at Concordia and McGill universities. In 1996, he wrote an article critical of the Chinese government for a local Chinese publication called The Chinese Press. A fellow student allegedly took the article back to the Peoples' Republic of China and filed a complaint with Chinese authorities against the Applicant.
[3] The Applicant says that as a result, his family was visited in 1996 by the Chinese secret police. The same authorities apparently contacted his family by telephone on one other occasion in 1998. The Applicant says that his family advised him to remain in Canada and he did so.
[4] While in Canada, the Applicant let his status as a student lapse and began to live and work illegally in Canada. He renewed his Chinese passport in 1997.
[5] On December 17, 2003, the Applicant claimed protection as a Convention refugee on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion. During his refugee hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the "Board"), he amended his claim to include that he feared persecution for religious reasons. The evidence shows that he was baptized in 2003 but that he had been a practicising Christian since 1996.
[6] The claim was heard before the Board on April 5, 2004. On May 19, 2004, the Board rejected the Applicant's claim for protection finding that he had not provided credible or trustworthy evidence. The Board's negative credibility findings were based on important inconsistencies and omissions in the Applicant's evidence. The Board also rejected the Applicant's claim on the basis of his delay in claiming refugee status.
[7] On his application for judicial review of the Board's decision, the Applicant asserts that the Board misinterpreted the evidence at hand and failed to sufficiently justify the negative conclusions drawn.
[8] Reasons are required to be sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible so that a claimant may know why his or her claim has failed and be able to decide whether to seek leave for judicial review. See: Mehterian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 545 (FCA) online: QL. In my view, the Board's reasons, while brief, set out in clear, precise and intelligible terms reasons for which the Applicant's claim failed. The Board's decision was based upon the following elements:
- the Applicant admitted that he was not a political activist neither in the Peoples' Republic of China nor Canada;
- the Applicant was unable to provide any details on the various arrests in Shanghai by Chinese authorities reported in his article;
- the Board doubted that the article in question was ever brought to the attention of the Chinese authorities;
- the Applicant's PIF makes no mention of the authorities' telephone call to the Applicant's parents' home;
- the Applicant's PIF makes no mention of his alleged fear of persecution for religious reasons (as mentioned above, his PIF was only modified in this respect during the hearing before the Board).
All of the above findings support the Board's conclusion that the Applicant has failed to establish a subjective fear of persecution on the alleged Convention ground.
[9] Further, the Board, in its reasons, also based its decision on the Applicant's considerable delay in claiming protection, which delay is inconsistent with his alleged subjective fear. This latter ground appears not to have been contested by the Applicant in his written submissions before the Court. Such delay can be indicative of a lack of subjective fear.
[10] It is settled law that determinations of fact and credibility findings are reviewed by a Court in the context of a judicial review on the standard of patent unreasonableness. See Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 732, online: QL. In the circumstances, it was open to the Board to reject the Applicant's evidence in respect to the newspaper article he wrote upon which he based that his refugee "sur place" claim. The Board's findings in this regard cannot be said to be patently unreasonable. On the whole of the evidence, particularly in view of the Applicant's significant delay in claiming refugee status, it was open to the Board to find the Applicant's behaviour inconsistent with either a subjective fear of persecution or of one fearing serious harm or risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
[11] The Board committed no reviewable error in concluding as it did. In consequence, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[12] The parties have had the opportunity to raise a serious question of general importance as contemplated by section 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, Chapter 27, and have not done so. I do not propose to certify a serious question of general importance.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question will be certified.
"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4950-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Chang Fa Wang v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Québec
DATE OF HEARING: February 16, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: BLANCHARD, J.
DATED: April 13, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Andrea C. Snizynski For the Applicant
Mr. Evan Liosis For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Andera C. Snizynski For the Applicant
John H. Sims, Q.C. For the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada