2011 FC, 2011 FC 1030

Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20110902 Docket: IMM-461-11 Citation: 2011 FC 1030 Ottawa, Ontario , September 2, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Beaudry BETWEEN: MAO QIN WANG Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review under s 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 26 (IRPA) of a negative decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the Board) dated January 5, 2011. [ 2 ] This application for judicial review shall be allowed for the reasons below. [ 3 ] The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China ( China ).

He fears that if returned he will be arrested, jailed, maltreated and will be unable to practice his Roman Catholic faith freely. [ 4 ] The Board had several concerns regarding his credibility; especially, it found that the applicant was never a genuine practicing Roman Catholic. The applicant’s level of knowledge of the Catholic faith did not commensurate with someone who had been a Roman Catholic for three years. For example, the Board made note of the following (Board’s decision, paras 19-28, for a complete list): a. The applicant displayed little knowledge of mass; b.

He was asked about the reading of the Gospel by the priest. The applicant testified that the previous Sunday’s reading was from Exodus. The Board noted that this was incorrect, as the Gospel is always from the New Testament; c. He displayed little knowledge of the Old Testament; d. He had little knowledge of the Bible’s characters, such as Mary, Elizabeth and Mary Magdalene;

e. He did not know the story of the Good Samaritan; [5] At the resumption of the hearing, the applicant correctly answered questions pertaining to the rosary and to the sevensacraments. The Board gave little weight to the answers, as it concluded that the applicant could have been anticipating the questions. [6] The applicant produced a letter from The Toronto Chinese Centre – Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church indicating that he hadbeen attending church regularly since September of 2008 and produced a Baptismal and a Confirmation Certificate from the samechurch.

The Board gave these documents little evidentiary weight given the applicant’s lack of credibility and lack of knowledge of theRoman Catholic faith and practice. [7] In similar cases the standard of review applicable to findings of fact, including credibility, is reasonableness (Dunsmuir v NewBrunswick, 2009 SCC 9 , [2009] SCJ 9; Khosa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 SCC 12 ,[2009] 1 RCS 339).

The applicant adds that findings of fact based on speculative reasoning are entitled to less deference, on the basis thata reviewing court is often in an equal position as the Board to assess the reasonableness of such findings (Yada v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), (FC), [1998] FCJ 37, para 25; Giron v Canada (Minister of Employment andImmigration), [1992] FCJ 481, para 1). [8] The respondent agrees that the standard of review is reasonableness.

He states that where the Board’s decision is based on anassessment or weighing of the facts before it, its decision is reviewable only where it is based on an erroneous finding of fact made in aperverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it. [9] Therefore, the Court shall intervene only if the Board’s decision is found to be outside of the range of possible, acceptableoutcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law (Dunsmuir, para 47). [10] Although the applicant proposes numerous issues to be decided, the Court is of the opinion that the Board's negative finding ofthe applicant's knowledge of the Roman Catholic faith is central to the applicant's dismissal of his claim. [11] In Dong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2010 FC 55 , [2010] ACF 54, at para 20, the Court stated: In assessing a claimant’s knowledge of Christianity, the Board should not adopt an unrealistically high standard of knowledge or focuson a ‘few points of error or misunderstandings to a level which reached the microscopic analysis. [12] In that case, the Board drew a negative inference in relation to the applicant’s identity as a practicing Christian because of hisinability to easily describe the core elements of the Christian faith.

The Court held that the Board’s determination that the applicant wasunable to demonstrate a reasonable level of Christian knowledge, and therefore was not credible, was unreasonable. [13] In the present case, the Court finds that the Board erred in determining that the applicant was not a genuine Roman Catholic byholding him to an unreasonably high standard of religious knowledge. For example, the applicant was asked if the wafer distributedduring Holy Communion represented the body of Jesus or if it was the body of Jesus.

The applicant answered that it represented thebody of Jesus (transcript, Certified Tribunal Record, page 469, line 25). The Board found this answer to be incorrect. The Boarderroneously determined the applicant’s knowledge of the Catholic faith by way of “trivia”.

In assessing the applicant’s knowledge ofChristianity, the Board “erroneously expected the answers of the applicant to questions about his religion to be equivalent to the Board’sown knowledge of that religion” Ullah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] FCJ 1918, para 11. [14] The applicant was asked several detailed questions about the Christian religion which he answered correctly, for example, theprocedure of the Holy Communion (Certified Tribunal Record, page 468, line 45).

[ 15 ] The parties did not propose questions for certification and none arise. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The application for judicial review be allowed. 2. The matter is remitted back for redetermination by a different Board. 3. No question is certified. “Michel Beaudry” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-461-11 STYLE OF CAUSE: MAO QIN WANG v MCI PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto DATE OF HEARING: August 30, 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: BEAUDRY J. DATED: September 2, 2011 APPEARANCES :

SHELLEY LEVINE 416-364-2345 FOR THE APPLICANT STEPHEN JARVIS 416-952-7061 FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : LEVINE ASSOCIATES BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS TORONTO, ONTARIO FOR THE APPLICANT MYLES J. KIRVAN, Q.C. DY. AGC TORONTO , ONTARIO FOR THE RESPONDENT