Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20031003

Docket: IMM-4943-02

Citation: 2003 FC 1140

Ottawa, Ontario, this 3rd day of October, 2003

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY                          

BETWEEN:

                                                                     XIU YIN LIANG

                                                                 (a.k.a. Xiuyin Liang)

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                 Xiu Yin Liang sought refugee status in Canada, claiming that he fled China in 2001 to escape persecution for practising Falun Gong. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board found his story of fear and flight from China to be unsupported by credible evidence and dismissed his claim.    It concluded that Mr. Liang came to Canada with an ulterior motive. Mr. Liang argues that the Board made four serious errors and asks, by way of this application for judicial review, for a new hearing.

[2]                 I can find no error in the Board's analysis of the evidence and, therefore, cannot grant Mr. Liang's request.

[3]                 Mr. Liang argues first that the Board erred when it found that his knowledge of Falun Gong was not that of a genuine devotee. For example, he was unfamiliar with the practice of reciting verses during exercises. Mr. Liang suggests that the Board came to a faulty conclusion in that it failed to cite any documentary evidence to support it.

[4]                 The Board had documentary evidence before it against which to measure Mr. Liang's testimony. The Board questioned Mr. Liang on the basis of that evidence, and gave him a clear opportunity to address its concerns. Further, the Board cited Mr. Liang's lack of knowledge about the practice of reciting verses merely as an example of his unfamiliarity with Falun Gong. The evidence also disclosed other grounds for the Board's finding that his knowledge was poor. In light of this evidence, the Board's finding was reasonable.

[5]                 Mr. Liang also questioned the Board's grounds for doubting his description of his exit from China. He claimed to have obtained a passport and an exit visa in his own name at the same time as security authorities were allegedly searching for him.


[6]                 The Board thought this was an unlikely scenario. It felt that if Chinese authorities were genuinely interested in Mr. Liang, they would have apprehended him or curtailed his freedom to leave the country. The Board was clearly entitled to draw this inference: Yu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FTC 720, [2003] F.C.J. No. 932 (QL)( T.D.), at para. 14.

[7]                 Third, Mr. Liang challenged the Board's dissatisfaction with his various explanations for delaying his application for refugee status in Canada. In total, Mr. Liang gave six different reasons, most of them unconnected to the questions put to him or at odds with other evidence. In my view, the Board's treatment of Mr. Liang's evidence in this area was sound.

[8]                 Finally, Mr. Liang disputes the Board's reliance on his demeanour as a basis on which to discredit his testimony. The Board found Mr. Liang's evidence to be less than direct. It did not, however, refer to any specific examples. I agree that fact-finders must take great care before discounting a witness's evidence based on his or her behaviour. However, looking at the Board's reasons as a whole, I see no basis for the argument that the Board assessed Mr. Liang's testimony unfairly. It was entitled to take into account the manner in which Mr. Liang delivered his testimony, along with the rest of the evidence, as one of the relevant factors in deciding the claim.

[9]                 Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.


                                                                        JUDGMENT

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that:

1.          The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.          No question of general importance is stated.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                               Judge                       


                              FEDERAL COURT

             Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                              IMM-4943-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:              XIU YIN LIANG

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                         TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                           WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003   

REASONS FOR JDUGMENT AND

JUDGMENT BY:                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY

DATED:                                                    FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2003

APPEARANCES BY:                              Ms. Vania Campana

                                                                                                                               FOR THE APPLICANT

Ms. Andrea Hammell

                                                                                                                           FOR THE RESPONDENT

                                                                                                                                                                       

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                 Ms. Vania Campana

                                                                      Lewis & Associates

290 Gerrard Street East

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2G4                                        FOR THE APPLICANT

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                                                                                                           FOR THE RESPONDENT



 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.