[2]                The Applicant, Wei Ting Xu, arrived in Canada on January 14, 2004, from the People=s Republic of China (PRC). He claims that he began to practice Falun Gong in October 2002, knowing it had been illegal to do so in the PRC.

[3]                Prior to the hearing, the Board had advised the Applicant that identity would be an issue and had asked him to furnish his original Chinese Resident Identity Card (RIC), which he did. The Refugee protection officer examined the RIC and noted on a photocopy the words ACard (original) checked, OK. Returned to Cl^[1] @. The Refugee protection officer then returned the original to the Applicant.

[4]                The Board denied his refugee claim finding inconsistencies and implausibilities regarding:

a) the claimant=s mother=s birthday

b) the Applicant=s Hukou (a mandatory Chinese household registration passport)

c) the Applicant=s work record.

[5]                The Board felt that the central issues in the claim were the claimant=s identity and credibility of the alleged incidents. In light of the inconsistencies regarding the three items referred to, and in view of the documentary evidence establishing that “both counterfeit cards and fraudulently obtained but legitimately produced cards are obtainable and in circulation^[2] “, the Board ruled that the RIC was fraudulent or fraudulently obtained.

[6]                There is no dispute between the parties that the appropriate standard of review for the assessment of identity documents is patent unreasonableness. (See Adar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 1997 CanLII 5091 (FC), (1997), 132 F.T.R. 35.

[7]                During the hearing the Board never raised any concerns that it had with respect to the mother=s birthday, the Hukou or the work record. It also did not raise the issue of the genuineness of the RIC.

[8]                It is trite law that in an IRP hearing, an applicant must be given an opportunity to explain contradictions. (See Husein v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 726 para. 9). This Board clearly failed to do in this case.

[9]                In addition, the Board asked for the original of the RIC and received it. It did not forensically test the RIC and the Refugee Protection Officer noted ACard (original) checked, OK. Returned to Cl@ on the photocopy thereof. The Board did not raise the genuineness of the RIC at the hearing but only observed elliptically A it says > Okay. Returned to claimant=. It does not say whether the document is okay or not.@^[3] Having never raised the genuineness of the RIC and not having tested it forensically, the Board then cannot assert the document is fraudulent or fraudulently obtained. There is no logical connection between the findings regarding the mother=s birthday, the Hokou or the work record, and the genuineness of the RIC.