Vancouver, British Columbia, November 9, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Hui Lin is a citizen of China, who sought refugee protection in Canada based upon his purported involvement with the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected his claim on the basis that his story was not credible.
[2] Mr. Lin now seeks judicial review of that decision, asserting that many of the Board’s credibility and plausibility findings were patently unreasonable.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I am of the view that when the Board’s decision is read fairly, as a whole, it is reasonable, and should not be disturbed.
How Mr. Lin Learned About Falun Gong
[4] The central reason why the Board found that Mr. Lin’s claim to be a practitioner of Falun Gong lacked credibility related to his explanation of how it was that he came to be involved in Falun Gong.
[5] Mr. Lin testified that in the summer of 2001, he met an individual named Quiang Chen at a disco. The two men hit it off immediately, and saw each other socially a few times over the next ten days or so.
[6] Mr. Lin says that he then visited Mr. Chen at his house. As he arrived, Mr. Lin looked through a window in Mr. Chen’s house, where he could see Mr. Chen doing some type of exercise. When Mr. Lin asked Mr. Chen about this, Mr. Chen told him that he was performing a Falun Gong exercise. Mr. Chen then loaned Mr. Lin a copy of the Zhuan Falun book to review.
[7] The Board found this story to be completely incredible for a number of reasons. Firstly, given the situation in China at the time, the Board thought it implausible that Mr. Chen would be performing a Falun Gong exercise in front of a window, with the curtains only partially drawn.
[8] Moreover, the Board found it improbable that Mr. Chen would tell a casual acquaintance about his involvement with the Falun Gong movement, at a time that the Chinese government was coming down very harshly on Falun Gong practitioners.
[9] Similarly, the Board found it improbable that Mr. Chen would give a copy of a banned book to his new friend, the first time that Mr. Lin visited Mr. Chen’s home.
[10] I see nothing unreasonable about any of these findings. A review of the country condition information discloses that while Falun Gong had been banned in China for some time, after several alleged Falun Gong supporters immolated themselves in Tiananmen Square in January of 2001, the Chinese government significantly stepped up its efforts to quell support for the movement. To this end, the government ordered the detention of Falun Gong practitioners.
[11] Moreover, the country condition information reveals that these efforts continued throughout 2001, with the result that by early 2002, the Chinese authorities had succeeded in significantly reducing the number of Falun Gong supporters, with those still practicing Falun Gong having been driven underground.
[12] It is against this backdrop that one has to consider Mr. Lin’s story that, at the height of the government crackdown, a casual acquaintance practiced Falun Gong exercises in front of a window, at a time that he was expecting company.
[13] Moreover, one has to consider Mr. Lin’s claim that Mr. Chen purportedly admitted his involvement in an illegal organization to someone that he barely knew.
[14] Finally, at a time when the dissemination of Falun Gong material was punishable by death, Mr. Lin would have us believe that Mr. Chen gave a new friend a copy of a banned book.
[15] In my view, the Board’s finding that none of this was plausible was entirely reasonable.
Mr. Lin’s Behaviour after Starting to Practice Falun Gong
[16] The Board also found that Mr. Lin’s description of his behaviour after he began practicing Falun Gong to be implausible. In this regard, the Board found it implausible that Mr. Lin would practice Falun Gong at Mr. Chen’s home, where Mr. Chen lived with his wife and children.
[17] Given the evidence before the Board with respect to the efforts of the Chinese government at this time to have the family members of Falun Gong supporters turn in their relatives, I find that there is nothing unreasonable about the Board’s finding in this regard.
The Sale of Falun Gong Books at the Store
[18] Mr. Lin testified that he and Mr. Chen ultimately went into business together, opening a book store. According to Mr. Lin, the store maintained a small stock of Falun Gong books and would sell these books to Falun Gong practitioners.
[19] Given Mr. Lin’s testimony as to the care that he took to ensure that his personal copy of the Zhuan Falun was kept under lock and key in his home, the Board found Mr. Lin’s seemingly casual attitude regarding the sale of Falun Gong books at the store to be surprising. Having reviewed Mr. Lin’s evidence on this point, I am satisfied that this finding was one that was reasonably open to the Board.
Other Credibility and Plausibility Findings
[20] Mr. Lin’s counsel took the Court through a painstaking analysis of the Board’s decision, identifying a number of other findings that she says were unreasonable.
[21] I have considered counsel’s arguments on each of these points. I agree that in some instances, the Board was clearly overreaching, and was looking for implausibilities where none really existed. However, when the decision is read fairly, as a whole, it is quite clear that the Board’s decision turned on the threshold finding that Mr. Lin’s explanation of how it was that he came to be involved in Falun Gong lacked credibility – a finding that I have found to be unassailable.
Failure to Consider Documentary Evidence
[22] Finally, Mr. Lin asserts that the Board erred in failing to refer to key documentary evidence. This evidence consists of two letters, one of which was from Mr. Lin’s father in China, claiming that representatives of the Public Security Bureau had recently attended at Mr. Lin’s father’s home, looking for Mr. Lin.
[23] The second letter was from a Falun Gong practitioner in Vancouver, confirming that Mr. Lin had been practicing Falun Gong at Queen Elizabeth Park since March of 2005.
[24] It is well established that, as a general rule, the Board does not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence, and will be presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it in coming to its decision: see Woolaston v. Canada (Minister of Manpower and Immigration), [1973] S.C.R. 102 and Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] F.C.J. No. 946, 147 N.R. 317.
[25] That said, there will be cases where the evidence not referred to is of such central importance to the issues at hand that the failure of the Board to make specific reference to the evidence in question may lead to the inference that the evidence has been ignored: see, for example, Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425, 157 F.T.R. 35 at ¶ 14 – 17.
[26] Insofar as the letter from the Canadian Falun Gong follower is concerned, I am not persuaded that this evidence was of such probative value that the failure of the Board to specifically refer to it leads to the inference that the evidence was overlooked. The question for the Board was whether Mr. Lin faced a risk of persecution in China by reason of his involvement with Falun Gong while he was in that country. This letter sheds no light on that question.
[27] It is also noteworthy that while the letter claims that Mr. Lin had been practicing Falun Gong at Queen Elizabeth Park, Mr. Lin himself testified before the Board that he practices Falun Gong in “Keary” Park in Vancouver.
[28] The letter purportedly sent by Mr. Lin’s father is more problematic, in that it does relate to the Public Security Bureau’s alleged ongoing interest in Mr. Lin. It would certainly have been preferable had the Board specifically referred to this letter in its decision.
[29] That said, a review of the letter, its timing, and its source, all lead to the inference that it was sent in an effort to shore up Mr. Lin’s refugee claim. As such, it was of such limited probative value that the failure of the Board to make specific reference to it in the decision does not amount to a reviewable error.
Conclusion
[30] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[31] Neither party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2053-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: HUI LIN v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: November 8, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Nora Ng
|
|
|
Marjan Double
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
ELGIN CANNON & ASSOCIATES Barristers & Solicitors Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
MR. JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice (Vancouver)
|