Gao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)

Gao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-10-31
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 1129
File numbers
IMM-65-02
Decision Content
Date: 20021031
Docket: IMM-65-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1129
Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
FENG LUAN GAO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant, a citizen of China, alleges that she fled China because she could not practice the Tian Dao religion freely and because she was persecuted by the Chinese authorities for her participation in Tian Dao. She claimed Convention refugee status in Canada and by decision dated December 10, 2001, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) determined that she is not a Convention refugee. The applicant seeks judicial review of that decision.
[2] Despite the capable and articulate submissions of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the CRDD erred in its determination. The board found that the applicant was not credible. In its analysis, it explained in considerable detail its reasons for not believing her. It then noted that she had delayed in making her claim and that the documentary evidence was contrary to the evidence provided by her.
[3] Counsel for the applicant submits that the CRDD made various factual errors in its analysis, including consideration of irrelevant factors. I agree that there were some factual errors. However, the evidence, when considered in its totality, supports a conclusion that it was reasonably open to the CRDD to find that central aspects of the applicant's story were not credible.
[4] The applicant concedes that the crux of her argument is that the board failed to specifically refer to documentary evidence indicating that Tian Dao is an illegal religion in China and that worshippers are persecuted. She relies, in this respect, on a document that was cited by the CRDD in its decision. The applicant argues that the comments of a history professor and an assistant professor of East Asian religions, should have been specifically mentioned by the CRDD. The difficulty with the applicant's argument is that the board's conclusions as to whether there has been Tian Dao activity in mainland China in recent years do not conflict with the professorial comments. The latter indicates that there may be some activity but there is no verification of any recent persecution. The CRDD concluded, in view of the Human Rights Watch information indicating that there had not been any mistreatment of Tian Dao followers recently, that there may not be serious Tian Dao activity still ongoing in China. The board did not, as alleged, deny that there may be some activity; it concluded that whatever activity may be ongoing was not of a nature serious enough to verify the claims of the applicant.
[5] It was for the CRDD to weigh the evidence and it did. The applicant's position, in essence, constitutes disagreement with the board's assessment of credibility and the weight it assigned to the evidence, neither of which afford a basis for the court's intervention. Evidence that followers of the Tian Dao were being persecuted in China today emanated from the applicant and the CRDD found that she was not credible. There is no documentary evidence, in the record, to establish that the Tian Dao followers are being persecuted in China. Thus, there exists no objective basis for fear of persecution based on religion.
[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel did not suggest a question for certification. No question is certified.
ORDER
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question is certified.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-65-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: FENG LUAN GAO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2002
APPEARANCES: Mr. Hart Kaminker
For the Applicant
Ms. Jillian Siskind
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Hart A. Kaminker
Barrister and Solicitor
425 University Avenue
Suite 500
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1T6
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20021031
Docket: IMM-65-02
BETWEEN:
FENG LUAN GAO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER