Canada Immigration Case-law Canada v Meng, IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements by Joy Stephen, Polinsys

Editorial Caselaws Leave a Comment

IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Well founded fear of persecution — Refugee claimants were citizens of China who alleged fear of persecution from Public Security Bureau (PSB) as members of underground church — Claimants alleged that while they were in Canada on visitor visas their son in China called to tell them that PSB had informed him that underground church parents attended had been raided and that several members had been arrested — Claimants alleged that son told them that PSB kept returning every four or five months looking for them — Upon arrival in Canada claimants began attending Christian church and were baptized second time and obtained baptismal certificates — Board drew negative credibility inference from fact that claimants provided no documents, such as summons or arrest warrant, to support their allegation that PSB had sought to arrest them — Board also drew negative inference from claimants’ lack of effort to obtain information regarding church members allegedly arrested — Board found claimants lacked subjective fear as they did not claim refugee status upon arrival in Canada — Board concluded that claimants had not practiced Christianity in China, were not sought after by PSB, and were not genuine Christians now — Board denied claim and claimants applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Board identified number of credibility concerns that were reasonable and cumulatively sufficient to support its final decision — It was reasonable for Board to suspect that timing of alleged church raid and delay in making refugee claim indicated that claimants had intended all along to make refugee claim and delayed it in order to become established at Canadian church — To succeed in their claim, claimants needed to establish that church in China had been raided and members arrested and in absence of any corroborative evidence, they failed to do so — In light of many implausibilities and inadequacies in testimony, Board was entitled to consider presumption of truthfulness rebutted

Leave a Reply