CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Status in Canada |
Convention Refugees |
Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-3277-00
2001 FCT 500, Heneghan J.
17/5/01
6 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD's determination applicant not Convention refugee--Applicant, citizen of China, claiming Convention refugee status on basis of well-founded fear of persecution by Government of China because of her religion--Claiming to be adherent of Tian Dao religion, described as being composed of five religions: Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, Islam, and "new" religion, possibly Confucianism--Board made negative finding on credibility of applicant, primarily on basis of demeanour during hearing--Concluded lack of reliable information upon which to reach positive determination on applicant's claim for Convention refugee status--Whether Board erred in failing to assess whether applicant in fact Tian Dao believer--Respondent relying on Yu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 150 F.T.R. 240 (T.D.) to support argument Board's conclusion with respect to applicant's overall lack of credibility inviting inference Board rejected applicant's claim to be believer of Tian Dao religion, even though made no concrete finding about applicant's belief in religion--Assessment of credibility part of mandate assigned to Board in determination of claims for Convention refugee status, and demeanour factor that can be assessed in making credibility findings: Mostajelin v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 28 (C.A.) (QL) and Wen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 907 (C.A.) (QL)--But judicial deference to findings of credibility cannot serve to excuse Board's failure to clearly express itself on primary findings of fact: Chong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 999 (T.D.) (QL)--Court disagreeing with respondent's argument decision contrary to that of Yu--Reasonable to expect Board will clearly express itself on primary issues arising from claim for Convention refugee status--Here Board could not conclude applicant held well-founded fear of persecution on religious grounds unless found she was member of religion in question--Board failed to address "primary issue" in reasons--Erred by failing to address primary issue before it, i.e. well-foundedness of applicant's fear of persecution on ground of religion--Application allowed.