Liu c. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 896 (2013)

Conférencier:The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
Numéro de Registre:IMM-6239-12
Parties:Liu c. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
 
EXTRAIT GRATUIT

Federal Court - Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc896/2013fc896.html

Federal Court

Cour fédérale

Date: 20130822

Docket: IMM-6239-12

Citation: 2013 FC 896

Ottawa , Ontario , August 22, 2013

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell

BETWEEN:

PENG FEI LIU

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1] This is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [Act] for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated 18 June 2012 [Decision], which refused the Applicant’s application to be deemed a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Act.

BACKGROUND

[2] The Applicant is a 26-year-old citizen of China. He seeks protection in Canada from the Chinese Public Security Bureau [PSB]. The following narrative was laid out in the Applicant’s Personal Information Form [PIF] submitted with his refugee claim.

PIF Narrative

[3] The Applicant was born and raised in Gaocheng City, Hebei Province, China. The Applicant’s mother began practising Falun Gong in 2006, and attended weekly meetings in private homes. The Applicant and his father did not practise Falun Gong.

[4] On 19 February 2009, the Applicant came to Canada on a student visa. The Applicant learned more about the practise of Falun Gong while in Canada, and how Falun Gong practitioners were persecuted in China. His mother requested the Applicant send her some materials, and between May, 2009 and November, 2009 the Applicant mailed Falun Gong brochures and leaflets to his mother in China three times.

[5] On 17 January 2010, the Applicant received a phone call from his father. His father said that his mother’s Falun Gong group had been raided on 16 January 2010, and PSB officials had found the materials the Applicant had sent from Canada. PSB officials had detained the Applicant’s mother, who remains in custody. The PSB had also detained the Applicant’s father overnight for questioning, and he had to report to officials on a monthly basis from then on. The PSB also left a summons with the father requiring the Applicant to return to China immediately for questioning. The father told the Applicant not to return to China, as he would surely be put into jail.

[6] In late January 2010, the father was dismissed from his work due to the mother’s Falun Gong activities, and the Applicant’s brother was dismissed from his school for the same reason. PSB officials have continued to attend at the family’s home looking for the Applicant. The Applicant filed for refugee protection on 7 May 2010.

DECISION UNDER REVIEW

[7] The RPD’s primary concern with the Applicant’s claim was credibility. The Applicant presented a summons of the “Zhuan Huan” type, which is used when cooperation is expected or flight is not likely. It was not the coercive type of summons. Along with the summons, the Applicant presented documentary evidence on the role of appellate courts in China, which did not correspond to the documentary evidence that was before the RPD. The RPD preferred its own documentary evidence on the different types of summons because it came from multiple sources and corresponded to the actual evidence in front of it. The RPD noted that its documentary evidence was dated 1 June 2004, but there was no indication that the information it contained was no longer valid. The RPD also noted that the summons did not reference Article 92 of the People’s Republic of China Criminal Procedure Law , as the documentary evidence said it likely would. Based on this, the RPD determined the summons was not genuine.

[8] The RPD was also not persuaded that Chinese authorities, knowing the Applicant was in Canada, would continue looking for him and found, on a balance of probabilities, that this was not happening. The Applicant also testified that PSB authorities questioned his brother, but omitted this information from his PIF. The RPD considered this a significant omission because it was relevant to the extent to which PSB authorities were still interested in the Applicant. The Applicant’s explanation for the omission of this evidence from his PIF was that if his brother was dismissed from university, it necessarily meant he was questioned by the PSB, but the RPD did not find this explanation satisfactory. The RPD concluded that the brother was not questioned by the PSB and was not dismissed by his university.

[9] With respect to documentation submitted by the Applicant in support of his mother’s detention and his father’s dismissal from his employment, the RPD made reference to the documentary evidence which highlighted the availability of fraudulent documentation in China. As the RPD had already determined the summons was not genuine, it gave no weight to the documents indicating detention and dismissal.

[10] The Applicant alleged that he took special precautions when mailing Falun Gong materials to his mother. In particular, he changed the name of the recipient to someone not in his household. The RPD did not see this as meaningful, as the Chinese authorities were aware that the Applicant was in Canada and the documentation indicated that proof is not necessarily required by the Chinese police system. The fact that the Applicant sent the materials by courier might have actually increased scrutiny, and placed his mother more at risk.

[11] Based on the above noted credibility concerns, the RPD determined there was no credible evidence on which to find that the Applicant was a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the Act. Thus, his claim was rejected.

ISSUES

[12] The Applicant raises the following issue in this application:

a. Whether the RPD made unreasonable credibility findings by: (i) improperly assessing the Applicant’s summons and misconstruing evidence about the issuances of summonses in China; (ii) making speculative findings about the actions of the PSB; (iii) rejecting credible documentary evidence; and (iv) making adverse...

Pour continuer la lecture

SOLLICITEZ VOTRE ESSAI GRATUIT