2024 RLLR 99
Citation: 2024 RLLR 99
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 8, 2024
Panel: Oluwabunmi Bosede
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: China
RPD Number: TC3-14540
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00611
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claim of XXXX XXXX, who alleges to be a citizen of China, and is seeking protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
[2] This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The specifics of the claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form (the BOC).[1] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations. In summary the claimant alleges he is a Uygur and Islam, and he fears persecution at hands of the Chinese authorities should he return to China.
DECISION
[4] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should he return to China, on account of his ethnicity and religion.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] The panel finds that the identity of the claimant as a national of China is established, on a balance of probabilities, by the documents provided: Passport with a Canadian issued visa.
Credibility
[6] Based on the documents in the file, the tribunal has noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above. As mentioned earlier, the claimant has established his identity as an ethnic Uyghur born in Xinjiang through his passport, his birth certificate, and his national identity card. His birth certificate and his national identity card identify the claimant’s ethnic as Uyghur. After reviewing the documents, the tribunal has no reason to doubt their authenticity.
Objective Basis
[7] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to allegations of the claimant, coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, the panel finds that the claimant has established a prospective risk of being subjected to persecution in China and this risk is corroborated by the National Documentation Package for China.
[8] The objective documentary evidence demonstrates that the Uyghurs face a serious possibility of persecution in China based on their ethnicity and religion, which are closely linked.[2] The Chinese occupation of Uyghurs is notable for its high level of oppression, cultural and religious genocide, and state violence.[3] The Uyghurs face restrictions on their freedom of speech, religion, movement, and assembly in China.[4]
[9] According to the objective evidence[5], Uyghurs have been subjected to forced assimilation. “Since 2017, in tandem with a national policy referred to as “Sinicization,” XUAR authorities have instituted measures to assimilate Uyghurs into Han Chinese society and reduce the influences of Uyghur, Islamic, and Arabic cultures and languages. The XUAR government enacted a law in 2017 that prohibits “expressions of extremification” and placed restrictions upon dress and grooming, traditional Uyghur customs, and adherence to Islamic dietary laws (halal). Thousands of mosques in Xinjiang have been closed, demolished, or “Sinicized,” whereby Islamic motifs and Arabic writings have been removed. The Xinjiang government reportedly has placed nearly half a million Uyghur and other minority children in state-run boarding schools and has banned the use of Uyghur language in instruction in all schools in the XUAR.”
[10] With respect to mass internment, the evidence[6] indicates that “between 2017 and 2019, XUAR authorities, at the behest of Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping, arbitrarily detained over 1 million ethnic Uyghur and other Muslims in re-education centers. Detainees generally were not accused of crimes…Detainees were compelled to renounce many of their Islamic beliefs and customs as a condition for their release. Treatment in the centers reportedly included food deprivation, psychological pressure, sexual abuse, medical neglect, torture, and forced labor.”
[11] With respect to forced labor, “The PRC government has pressured many Uyghurs, including former detainees, into accepting employment in textile, apparel, agricultural, consumer electronics, and other labor-intensive industries, in Xinjiang and other provinces. Some factories utilizing Uyghur labor are tied to global supply chains. Uyghurs who refuse to accept such employment may face detention.[7]”
[12] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to allegations of the claimant, coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, the tribunal finds that the claimant has established a prospective risk of being subjected to the following harms: forced labour, arbitrary arrest, disappearance, restrictions on his freedom of movement, expression and association, torture and other forms of ill-treatment including death.
Nature of the Harm
[13] The panel has examined this claim under section 96 of the IRPA, as it concludes that the risk the claimant faces constitutes persecution based on at least one of the grounds prescribed in the Refugee Convention, specifically his ethnicity/race and religion.
State Protection
[14] The panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state in light of his particular circumstances. The State is the agent of persecution. As mentioned above, it is state policy to assimilate the Uyghurs and to eradicate and repress their culture and their rights. Accordingly, the presumption of state protection is rebutted.
Internal Flight Alternative
[15] The panel has examined whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. Based on the evidence on file, the panel finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout China. There is no place in China where the claimant would be free to express his culture or his language without facing a serious possibility of persecution.
CONCLUSION
[16] In light of the preceding, the tribunal concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA and accepts this claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Exhibit 2.
[2] Ibid., NDP Item 12.1.
[3] Ibid., NDP Items 2.6 and 2.20.
[4] Ibid., NDP Item 2.1.
[5] Document 3 : National Documentation Package, China, 28 April 2023, tab 13.15: China Primer: Uyghurs. In Focus. United States. Congressional Research Service. Thomas Lum; Michael A. Weber. 6 January 2023. IF10281.
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid