Shen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Shen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2007-05-01
Neutral citation
2007 FC 442
File numbers
IMM-2777-06
Decision Content
Date: 20070501
Docket: IMM-2777-06
Citation: 2007 FC 442
BETWEEN:
JIE ZHEN SHEN,
ZHENG DONG CAO and
ZHEN DONG CAO
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Pinard J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board), dated April 28, 2006, wherein the Board determined that the applicants were not “Convention refugees” or “persons in need of protection” as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act).
[2] Jie Zhen Shen, the principal applicant, and her two sons Zheng Dong Cao and Zhen Dong Cao are citizens of the People’s Republic of China. Zheng Dong Cao and Zhen Dong Cao’s claims are based on their mother’s claim.
[3] The Board found that, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant is not credible and is not being sought by the authorities in China.
[4] In assessing the credibility of the applicant, the Board noted that it was guided by the following principles established by the Federal Court of Appeal:
a) When an applicant swears to the truth of certain allegations there is a presumption that the allegations are true (Maldonado v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.)).
b) The existence of contradictions in the evidence is a valid basis for a finding of lack of credibility (Canada (M.E.I.) v. Dan-Ash (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (F.C.A.)).
c) A general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the applicant may conceivably extend to all relevant information emanating from his testimony (Sheikh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.)).
d) The Board is entitled in assessing credibility to rely on criterion such as rationality and common sense (Shahamati v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 415 (QL) (C.A.)).
[5] The Board found that there were a number of plausibility concerns with respect to the applicant’s testimony, as well as some omissions and inconsistencies.
[6] It is well established that the Court will only intervene in the credibility findings of the Board where the findings were made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7), which is not the case here.
[7] Indeed, upon reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied that the inferences drawn by the Board, which is a specialized tribunal, are not so unreasonable as to warrant the intervention of the Court (see Aguebor v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)). Given all the implausibilities, omissions and inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony, the general finding of a lack of credibility made by the Board could extend to all relevant evidence emanating from the applicant’s testimony (see Sheikh, supra).
[8] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Yvon Pinard”
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 1, 2007
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2777-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: JIE ZHEN SHEN, ZHENG DONG CAO and ZHEN DONG CAO v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 20, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Pinard J.
DATED: May 1, 2007
APPEARANCES:
John Savaglio FOR THE APPLICANTS
Aviva Basman FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John Savaglio FOR THE APPLICANTS
Barrister & Solicitor
Pickering, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada