Kang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Kang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2019-02-12
Neutral citation
2019 FC 185
File numbers
IMM-2766-18
Decision Content
Date: 20190212
Docket: IMM-2766-18
Citation: 2019 FC 185
Toronto, Ontario, February 12, 2019
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
JIN RONG KANG
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Mr. Jin Rong Kang (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”) dismissing his application for protection as Convention refugee or person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of China, sought protection on the basis of his status as a Falun Gong practitioner. The Board determined that he was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in China or in Canada and made other implausibility findings against him.
[3] The decision of the Board in this case is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Ye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 647 at paragraph 18.
[4] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard of reasonableness requires that a decision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible on the law and the facts.
[5] In my opinion, the decision of the Board does not meet this standard since it failed to reasonably asses the Applicant’s sur place claim in Canada. It is not clear if the Board considered the evidence before it about the Applicant’s practice of Falun Gong in Canada. This is a reviewable error and the application for judicial review will be allowed.
[6] It is not necessary for me to address the substantive arguments raised about the Board’s credibility finings.
[7] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter remitted to another panel of the Board for re-determination. There is no question for certification arising.
JUDGMENT in IMM-2766-18
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter remitted to another panel of the Board for re-determination. There is no question for certification arising.
"E. Heneghan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-2766-18
STYLE OF CAUSE:
JIN RONG KANG v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
February 12, 2019
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:
HENEGHAN J.
DATED:
February 12, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Nkunda I. Kabateraine
For The Applicant
Catherine Vasilaros
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nkunda I. Kabateraine
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
For The Applicant
Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent