Vietnam — Negative — Imputed political opinions — Credibility — Delay — Male.
Appearances:
Nina Chandy, Barrister and Solicitor, for the Claimant(s).
S. Pieters, Refugee Protection Officer.
REASONS FOR DECISION
¶ 1 These are the reasons for the decision in the claim to Convention refugee status made by Hien Thai Mai, a citizen of Vietnam. His claim is based on the grounds of his perceived political opinion. The panel also took into consideration sections 96, 97 (1) and 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, [See Note 1 below] (IRPA) in force as of June 28, 2002.
Note 1: As enacted by S.C. 2001, c.27.
¶ 2 The evidence adduced at the hearing included the testimony of the claimant, his Personal Information Form (PIF), [See Note 2 below] documents from Immigration Canada [See Note 3 below] and documentary evidence presented by counsel and the Refugee Protection Officer (RPO). The events upon which this claim are set out in the claimant's response to question 37 of his PIF.
Note 2: Exhibits C-1, C-2.
Note 3: Exhibits R-2, M-1.
¶ 3 After careful consideration of all the evidence, submissions and observations, the panel is not persuaded, on a balance of probabilities, as to the credibility of the claimant's alleged account of events.
¶ 4 The panel also considered difficulties that a person encounters when giving testimony through an interpreter in what might be considered a stressful situation. Furthermore, the panel has given due consideration to cultural factors that might impact on the manner in which the claimant provided his testimony. However, even given these considerations, the panel found the evidence provided by the claimant to be evasive, improbable, implausible and, therefore, not credible.
Summary of the claimant's allegations
¶ 5 The claimant stated in the relevant parts of his PIF, that he traveled to Canada because he was granted a Student Authorization. Once he arrived at a college in Vancouver, the scholarship was denied because the program had been changed. He stayed on for one month with friends of his parents. He fears returning to Vietnam because one of his five uncles was a political prisoner in 1975. His uncle was sentenced to death. In August 1988, when he was ten years old, he fled Vietnam by boat with neighbors and a distant relative. He was arrested for two weeks and released. Upon leaving Vietnam, he surrendered his ID card to the police. The claimant stated that if he were to re-apply for his documents, it would take two to three years to get them back. If he were to return, he would be an illegal resident. He would be arrested if the police asked for his legal documents.
¶ 6 The claimant added that he attends the Vietnamese and Chinese temples in Toronto. He also stated in the amendments to his PIF that he participated in a demonstration in Ottawa and that he registered with the Vietnamese Association in Toronto to go to Ottawa for the demonstration. He also indicated that he participated in a demonstration at the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa to express opposition to China taking land from Vietnam. He also stated that his name had been recorded on a list handed to an M.P. He further believes that the Vietnamese authorities, while demonstrating in front of the embassy, videotaped him.
Analysis
¶ 7 The panel, as indicated above was not persuaded as to the veracity of the scenario presented by the claimant. Therefore, the panel was not persuaded that the claimant was telling the truth. The panel finds that the claimant was not a credible witness, for the following reasons:
¶ 8 Although the claimant stated that he came to Canada to study, he never studied because his college program was changed. He did not attempt to attend or register for a similar class. Furthermore, the claimant went to live with friends of his parents and did not take any action regarding his stay. The claimant was asked whether it was his intention to go back when he came here. He stated "no." He was asked if he would even apply for refugee status in order to stay here. The claimant answered "yes." In light of the above, the panel draws a negative inference. The panel doubts that the claimant was ever a genuine student. His actions and answers suggest that it was his intention to stay in Canada.
¶ 9 Another concern arose about the veracity of the claimant's allegations as set out in his PIF, regarding his fear to return to Vietnam because he would be forced to serve in the military. He stated, in response to questioning by his counsel, that there is punishment for evading military service, and that he would be sent to prison. Subsequently, under examination by the RPO, the claimant stated that the age for military service is between 18 to 20 years. Secondly, he stated that he received the forms for military service when he was in high school. Thirdly, he conceded that he was never compelled in any way to serve in the military. The claimant was also asked why the army would be interested in him if he were active politically. The claimant stated that in the military, they make you work hard.
¶ 10 The panel has taken into account the claimant's answers and finds that he tried to mislead the panel. He stated in response to questioning by his counsel that he is afraid to return, because he will be forced to serve in the military. Under examination by the RPO, he conceded that the age for military recruitment is between 18 and 20 years and that he was never compelled to do his military service. The panel has no other alternative but to reject the claimant's allegation that he will be recruited for military service should he return to Vietnam.
¶ 11 Also, the claimant stated that he was cut off from the household registry book and that if returned to Vietnam, he would be an illegal resident.
¶ 12 Under examination by the RPO, he stated that it takes some time to get the registration book back. He was asked again whether an individual could re-apply for the book. The claimant conceded that you could re-apply. Again, in the panel's opinion, the claimant's answer, for example, that he will be an illegal resident, demonstrates that the allegations that he presented in his PIF which he attempted to make it credible at the hearing, does not have a ring of truth. The panel again drew a negative inference.
¶ 13 Moreover, the claimant was asked if he had any confirmation of his registration as a member of the Vietnamese Association. He answered in the negative. He added that he does not have confirmation of his membership because he did not ask for any. The claimant was asked when he became a member. He stated recently. He added that if he became a member he would be more involved. He also indicated that in order to become a member, he had to provide proof that he is a student here. He was then asked why he was then saying that he was a member. He claimant requested a few minutes before replying. Later on, he stated that the Association did not accept him as a member, and later indicated that he had not yet applied. He added that he was not fully committed yet.
¶ 14 In the panel's opinion, the claimant was unable to adequately explain whether or not he was a member of the Vietnamese Association. His answers were convoluted and detracted from his credibility. This issue is relevant, taking into account that this was the Organization that he allegedly joined in order to participate in the demonstrations in Ottawa.
¶ 15 Furthermore, the claimant was asked if he approached the Vietnam Association to inform them that if he returned to Vietnam, he would be in danger and that he was seeking protection in Canada. The claimant stated "no" and that he had not asked for help from the Vietnamese Association.
¶ 16 The claimant was asked whether as a result of his participation in a demonstration in front of the Vietnamese Embassy and which possibly had been videotaped, if anyone in his family had suffered any repercussions in Vietnam. The claimant stated that no one had suffered and added that his family is well.
¶ 17 In light of the above, the panel if of the opinion that the claimant participated in a demonstration only to buttress his refugee claim. He never was a member of the Vietnamese Association and certainly is not interested in becoming a member. The panel cannot accept the allegation that the Vietnamese authorities will be interested in his activities.
¶ 18 Furthermore, in light of the claimant's allegation, it is reasonable to think that his family would have suffered some kind of repercussion. This is especially so if he was videotaped and his signature was presented on some kind of list. However, the claimant stated that his family is well. The panel has also taken into consideration that his family members work for the government of Vietnam [See Note 4 below] and that it would be easy for authorities to punish them.
Note 4: Exhibit M-1,Record of the Examination. Officer's remarks: July 10, 2000.
¶ 19 The panel, after taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, is not persuaded, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant would be subjected to any repercussions by reason of his participation in a demonstration while in Canada. The panel cannot conclude that there is a reasonable chance or a serious possibility that he would be persecuted for a Convention ground, should he return to Vietnam. [See Note 5 below]
Note 5: Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 680; (CA) at 683.
Delay
¶ 20 The Federal Court of Canada has determined that when there is a delay in making a claim for Convention refugee status in Canada, a Refugee Division panel may draw an adverse inference, that the claimant's actions are not consistent with those of a person with a subjective fear of persecution. Delay points to a lack of subjective fear, the reasoning being that someone who was truly fearful would claim refugee status at the first available opportunity. [See Note 6 below]
Note 6: Castillejos, Joaquin Torres v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1950-94), Cullen, December 20, 1994.
¶ 21 The claimant arrived in Canada on October 31, 1999, but only applied for Convention refugee status on June 9, 2000, more than seven months after his arrival. The claimant stated in his viva voce testimony that he did not know how to apply. The panel, in assessing the claimant's explanation, finds that this delay detracts from the subjective fear. If the claimant was really afraid to return to his country of origin, why did he not apply at the first available opportunity? The delay of over seven months is not consistent with the actions of a genuine refugee claimant, who would have been afraid to return to Vietnam. The panel also took into consideration that the claimant spoke some English and that he was with friends of his parents. The latter individuals were established in Canada. In the panel's opinion, he had ample opportunity to apply at an earlier date. He did not do so.
¶ 22 Furthermore, the claimant could have reasonably have approached the Vietnamese community or the Vietnamese Association and asked for help.
¶ 23 For these reasons, the panel is of the opinion that the delay impacts negatively on the claimant's credibility.
Risk to life / Torture
¶ 24 Given that the panel found the claimant is not credible or trustworthy witness, there is no reliable evidence remaining to find that he is a person in need of protection. There exists no substantial grounds to believe, or a serious possibility, that he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, nor is there a serious possibility that he will be subjected personally to a risk of his life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Vietnam.
Conclusion
¶ 25 Based on the foregoing analysis, the Refugee Protection Division determines that Hien Thai Mai is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, and therefore rejects his claim to be a protected person.
"Felix Mora"
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 10th day of April, 2003.
QL Update: 20040920
qp/e/nc/qlamb