Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1176 (CanLII)

Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1176 (CanLII)

Date: 2004-08-25
Docket: IMM-6933-03
URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1hvqw Citation: Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1176 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1hvqw> retrieved on 2012-05-29 Share:   Noteup: Search for decisions citing this decision
 

 

Date: 20040825

 

Docket: IMM-6933-03

 

Citation: 2004 FC 1176

 

Toronto, Ontario, August 25th, 2004

 

Present:          The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein                                

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

                                                                  BIN ZHENG

 

                                                                                                                                          Applicant

 

 

                                                                           and

 

 

 

 

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

 

 

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)

 

 

[1]                The applicant is a 21 year old citizen of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). He claims to face persecution from Chinese government officials due to his belief in the Tian Dao religion.

 

[2]                The Board rejected the applicant’s claim drawing negative credibility inference from his failure to mention in his PIF details regarding the police search of his house temple and parent’s home. In addition, it concluded that the applicant’s story was not supported by documentary evidence regarding the treatment of Tian Dao followers in China.

 

[3]                While the Board’s finding regarding the omissions in the Applicants PIF were reasonable and well explained the Board also committed two errors.

 

[4]                First the Board found on p3. “The source speculates that even if there are such Tin Dao believers in Fujian province, Tin Dao would certainly not be able to exist openly there as the claimant’s evidence suggest.” The fact is that nowhere in the entire record does the claimant ever allege that Tin Dao openly exists in Fujian province.

 

[5]                Secondly the Board states at p. 4

The claimant’s evidence is that his parents told him that five of his fellow believers were arrested among them the homeowner, where the raided service was held. Four of the believers were sentenced to two years in prison and the homeowner to four years. The panel does not find this credible. The documentary evidence states that the numbers of arrested and detained persons are not disclosed by the Chinese authorities. Further, because of the notoriety of Tian Dao, such arrests would very likely be conducted in secret. Nevertheless, the panel finds that such arrests and sentencing would probably come to the attention of Human Rights organizations. The panel finds that freedom of religion in Fujian province is a subject on which many Human Rights organizations report. Amnesty International states that an unofficial religion like Tian Dao would be considered to be a heretical organization and its members would be at risk of persecution. However, in a report dated March 2002, in response to a specific enquiry respecting the treatment of Tian Dao members in China, Amnesty International states that it has no recent reports of torture or ill-treatment of Tian Dao members. In this regard, the panel finds the alleged incident, which occurred in June, 2001, would have probably come to the attention of the Organization. [Emphasis Added]

 

 

 

 

[6]                   This statement is logically inconsistent. Either the arrest are made in secret and nobody knows about them (which would include the Applicant’s family and Human Rights organizations) or else notwithstanding the intense persecution by Chinese police information does leak out. The Board cannot have it both ways, i.e. accepting that arrest are made secretly and therefore doubting the applicant’s and his parent’s credibility as this makes it unlikely that they would know about arrest but then holding it against the Applicant that it has not heard from Human Rights organization about such secret arrests.

 

[7]                Both these errors fall into the ‘patently unreasonable’ category and therefore notwithstanding the strong findings by the Board on the omissions from the PIF, this decision cannot stand.

 

[8]                Consequently this application will be allowed.                                       

 

                                   ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the decision of the Board of August 5, 2003 is set aside and the matter is referred back for reconsideration to a differently constituted panel.

 

“K. von Finckenstein”

 

                                                                                                   J.F.C.                        

 

 

 

FEDERAL COURT

            Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

 

 

DOCKET:                                           IMM-6933-03

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:               BIN ZHENG                          

                                                                                             Applicant

 

and

 

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION            

                                                                                          Respondent

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      AUGUST 25, 2004   

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                                                                          VON FINCKENSTEIN J.                 

 

DATED:                                              AUGUST 25, 2004

 

APPEARANCES BY:            

 

Shelley Levine                                       For the Applicant

 

Anshumala Juyal                                    For the Respondent

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:         

 

Shelley Levine   

Barrister & Solicitor

Toronto, Ontario                                  For the Applicant

 

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada      For the Respondent

 

 

                              FEDERAL COURT

 

Date: 20040825

 

Docket: IMM-6933-03

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

BIN ZHENG

 

                                         Applicant

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

                                                                           Respondent

 

 

 

                                                                      

 

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

 

 

                                                                      

 

 

 

Posted in Case Law |

Please note: There is no solicitor-client privilege attached to this communication.  Sending an e-mail to Levine Associates will not make us your lawyers.  You will not be considered a client of the firm until we have agreed to act for you in accordance with our usual policies for accepting clients.  Unless you are a current client of Levine Associates, please do not include any confidential information in your e-mail, because no information you send us can be held in confidence, and no information we provide to you can be treated by you as legal advice, unless and until we have agreed to act for you.  There is no solicitor-client privilege attached to this communication.