2018 FC, 2018 FC 1257

Date: 20181212 Docket: IMM-2094-18 Citation: 2018 FC 1257 Vancouver, British Columbia, December 12, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:JIEFU GAN YANJUAN CHEN YUER FANNY GAN CHEN YUTING WINDY GAN CHEN YILIN DIEGO GAN CHENApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr.

Gan (the “Principal Applicant”), his wife Yanjuan Chen and their minor children Yuer Fanny Gan Chen, Yuting Windy GanChen and Yilin Diego Gan Chen (collectively “the Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and RefugeeBoard, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”) by which their claims for recognition as Convention refugees or persons in need ofprotection pursuant to

section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the“Act”), were dismissed. [2] The Principal Applicant and his wife are citizens of China. Their children were born in Ecuador. [3] The Principal Applicant alleges a fear of the Public Security Bureau (the “PSB”) as the result of a skirmish with government officialsarising in connection with the expropriation of property owned by him. The Principal Applicant did not agree with the amount ofcompensation he was offered. [4] Ms.

Chen based her claim upon her status as a woman fearing the application of the family planning laws in China, specifically fearof forced use of an intrauterine contraception device since she has already given birth to more children than permitted by Chinese familyplanning law. [5] The claims of the children were based upon their status in Ecuador as ethnic minorities who would face discrimination and be at riskfrom local crime and gun violence. [6] The Board assessed the claims of the Principal Applicant and his wife against China, and the claims of the minor children againstEcuador. [7] The Board rejected all the claims.

It found that the Principal Applicant and his wife were not credible. It found that the minorchildren had the right to return to Ecuador by virtue of their citizenship. [8] The Applicants argue that the Board unreasonably assessed the credibility of their claims and failed to use a forward-lookingperspective.

They also submit that the Board unreasonably assessed the claims of the children against Ecuador since the children wouldnot reasonably be able to live in that country. [9] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Board reasonably assessed the evidence of theApplicants, including the documentary evidence, and committed no reviewable error. [10] The decision of the Board is reviewable upon the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Nadarajah v. Canada (Citizenshipand Immigration) (2012), 2012 FC 670 , 409 F.T.R. 308. [11] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the reasonableness standardrequires that a decision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that aredefensible on the law and the facts. [12] Upon considering the evidence before the Board and the submissions, both written and oral, of the parties, I am not persuaded thatthe Board’s conclusions were unreasonable, within the meaning of Dunsmuir, supra. [13] The Applicants testified before the Board.

In addition to assessing the contents of the narratives submitted with their claims forprotection, the Board had the opportunity to weigh the oral evidence and to decide if that evidence credibly established the assertedclaims.

[ 14 ] I see no error in the manner in which the Board weighed all the evidence and there is no basis for judicial intervention. [ 15 ] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed; there is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-2094-18 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising. “E.

Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-2094-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: JIEFU GAN, YANJUAN CHEN, YUER FANNY GAN CHEN, YUTING WINDY GAN CHEN, YILIN DIEGO GAN CHEN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: december 5, 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS HENEGHAN J. DATED: december 12, 2018 APPEARANCES : Phillip J. L. Trotter For The ApplicantS Bradley Gotkin For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lewis & Associates Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent