Category: China

Categories
All Countries China

2019 RLLR 216

Citation: 2019 RLLR 216
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 2, 2019
Panel: S. Morgan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-14438
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-14486, TB9-14494, TB9-14495, TB9-14496
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 002195-002198

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the refugee claims of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX and their claims for refugee protection. This decision is being rendered from the bench, and written reasons may be edited.

Determination:

[2]       I find Mr. XXXX and the youngest child XXXX are not Convention refugees, as I find they’re excluded pursuant to Article 1(e) of the Convention relating to the status of refugees because they have permanent residence in Japan.

[3]       Ms XXXX and the older two children I find to be Convention refugees, as I find their country of reference is China and I find they have a nexus to the Convention for the race and religion.

Allegations:

[4]       You set out a comprehensive history in your Basis of Claim Narrative.

[5]       To summarize your risks, you fear Chinese authorities that’s owing to ill-treatment of Uyghurs in China. You do not articulate a risk in returning to Japan.

Identity:

[6]       Your personal identity as nationals of China is established by your passports and your identity as Uyghurs is established by your testimony and by the language of your testimony and by the other identity documents.

[7]       Concerning the status in Japan, the issue is exclusion pursuant to Article 1(e) of the Convention. An Article 1(e) states that the Convention shall not apply to a person who’s recognized by the authorities of the country in which he or she has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of nationality of that country.

[8]       I note the Federal Court of Appeal in Zeng set out the test to be taken into account when deciding whether Article 1(e) applies and that is considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing. Does the claimant have status substantially similar to that of its nationals in a third country.

[9]       And I find for you, sir, and for your youngest son the answer to that question is yes. Okay.

[10]     I note your credible testimony that you all applied for permanent residence and only you and the youngest son were approved. You’re unsure of the reasoning. Think it might have something to do with your work in Japan.

[11]     But concerning Ms XXXX and the older children in Japan, I find their status there is not permanent.

[12]     The documents you provided today which are your Japanese permits indicate that those three permits had to be renewed and could be denied as they’re at the discretion of Japanese authorities. So, I find that 1(e) exclusion not applicable as you do not have status there akin to citizenship.

[13]     So, for you, ma’am, and … and the two older children I’m assessing your risk in returning to China which I find is your only country of nationality.

[14]     I found you a credible witness also. You testified about the last time you were in China in 2016, how you were questioned repeatedly by authorities and how you fear what is ongoing there now for Uyghurs and that includes Uyghurs being sent to detention camps for no reason other than being Uyghur, and that’s corroborated by much documentary evidence that you provide and that I find in the National Documentation Package.

[15]     I find that treatment of Uyghurs is worsening in China. I note the Department of State report at Item 2.1 of Exhibit 3 indicates that the government significantly intensified its campaign of mass detention of members of Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. That authorities have possibly arbitrarily detained 2 million Uyghurs.

[16]     I find further you would not have the opportunity to openly practice your faith in China, and that Uyghur activities in religious, commercial, and cultural spheres are severely curtailed in China.

[17]     I find the agent of persecution is the State. That it is objectively unreasonable for you to seek State protection, and I find those conditions for Uyghurs exists throughout China, so there’s no internal flight alternative.

[18]     So, for you, Madam, and the two older children I do find what you fear amount … amounts to persecution starting from the Chinese Government’s appropriation of your Uyghur names and continuing with an ongoing interference with your ability to freely worship.

[19]     I do conclude that you are Convention refugees and I accept your claims.

[20]     I thank you all for appearing today.

[21]     CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[22]     MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Interpreter. Excellent work. Thank you.

[23]     CLAIMANT: Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2021 RLLR 37

Citation: 2021 RLLR 37
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 15, 2021
Panel: S. Qi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Lindsey K Weppler
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-29019
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000012-000017

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX. You claim to be a citizen of China and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.1

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The detail of your claim is fully set out in your Basis of Claim form2 and is supplemented by your testimony at the hearing. In summary, you fear persecution in China at the hands of the Chinese government due to your membership in a particular social group; specifically, as a Falun Gong practitioner.

[3]       You allege that you were introduced to Falun Gong by your boyfriend in March 2019, while studying in Canada. You allege that at the time, you felt depressed, stressed from your studies and had difficulty eating and sleeping. You further allege that since practicing Falun Gong, you have felt positive changes both physically and mentally, as such, you have continued to be involved with Falun Gong practice and activities.

[4]       You allege that if you return to China, you would be persecuted due to your identity as a Falun Gong practitioner. You also allege that there is no state protection or an Internal Flight Alternative for you in China.

DETERMINATION

[5]       I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you have credibly established a nexus between what you fear and a Convention ground. Accordingly, I find that you are a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should you return to China. My reasons are as follows.

Identity

[6]       Your identity as a citizen of China is established, on a balance of probabilities, by your Chinese passport, the original which was seized by the Minister.3

ANALYSIS

[7]       In assessing your credibility, I am cognizant of the difficulties faced by claimants in establishing their claim, such as cultural factors, level of education and sophistication, anxiety inherent in responding to oral questions through an interpreter and the added stress in testifying via videoconference.

[8]       I find you to be a credible witness in general and therefore believe what you alleged in support of your claim.

[9]       Although you provided testimony regarding your relationship with your boyfriend, I did not find it necessary to explore it further given that a sur place basis to the claim have been established. Accordingly, I will not address this matter any further or make any findings on the credibility of your relationship with your boyfriend, Mr. XXXXX.

The Claimant’s Identity as a Falun Gong Practitioner

[10]     You testified in a straightforward manner, and there were no material inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained.

[11]     I accept, based on your credible testimony, that you were introduced to Falun Gong by your boyfriend in March 2019 in Canada and shortly thereafter began to practice on a regular basis.

[12]     With respect to your Falun Gong knowledge, I find your knowledge is commensurate to the length and frequency of your Falun Gong practice. Through your testimony, you have demonstrated adequate knowledge and understanding of Falun Gong and Master Li’s teachings. Although your explanation of attachments was not perfect, it reflected your own understanding of the Zhuan Falun and Master Li’s teachings. You were able to correctly identify and explain the purpose of the exercises when asked. You also correctly explained the law wheel and Karma. You explained why one should cultivate the mind in order to reach a higher level, and thus focus should be placed on cultivating the mind as it is more important than the body. You were also able to correctly explain the purpose and importance of sending righteous thoughts.

[13]     Most compelling was your testimony about loss and gain. You testified that you have always felt this loss growing up without a father and that made you felt different than other children. Prior to practicing Falun Gong, you were always fixated on why you did not have a father and why other children would have things that you did not have, and that you were unhappy because of this. You explained that these were attachments, and that through your practice and reading the book Zhuan Falun, you are able to let go of these feelings and that you have learned to care more about how your family members feel rather than your own feelings.

[14]     You testified about your participation in Falun Gong group practices and truth clarifying activities in Canada. You have also provided photos4 and support letters from your boyfriend as well as another friend.5 You further testified that Falun Gong has become a part of your life and that you wish to continue your practice freely in Canada. You indicated that Falun Gong has become an important part of your life and that you would not be willing to give up your practice even if you have to return to China.

Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection

[15]     You were asked about the delay in making your refugee claim. You explained that at the beginning when you were first introduced to Falun Gong, you decided to try it out for the purpose of strengthening your health. Although you have heard that Falun Gong is illegal in China, you did not practice in a committed manner. However, you made the claim for refugee protection when you realized that Falun Gong had integrated and became a part of your life and you were unable to separate yourself from the practice. Given that this time period also coincided with the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, which disrupted routine services at government offices, I find your explanation to be reasonable under these circumstances, and therefore finds that this delay does not raise significant concerns regarding subjective fear or your credibility. Accordingly, I did not draw any negative inferences in these regards.

[16]     I find your testimony to be spontaneous and genuine. You did not embellish your claim even when you had the opportunity to do so when I asked you about your photo being taken while participating in truth clarifying activities in front of XXXX XXXX. For these reasons, I find that you have established your identity as a Falun Gong practitioner, as well as your subjective fear, and I believe that your commitment and your spiritual practice is genuine.

Objective Basis

[17]     The objective evidence supports your claim. The National Documentary Package for China confirms that the Chinese government has banned the practice of Falun Gong since 1999, labeling it an “evil cult” under China’s Criminal Law and that there is an established 610 Office, an extrajudicial security apparatus wholly designed to eradicate Falun Gong. State authorities systematically target FLG practitioners, forcing them into prisons or labour and education camps where they are subject to harassment, torture, and forced conversion and/or sentenced to long prison terms.6

[18]     Documentary Evidence further indicates that new regulations on religious affairs took effect in February 2018 strengthening controls on places of worship, travel for religious purposes and children’s religious education. This report indicates that the campaign against Falun Gong continued in 2018 and practitioners face long prison terms and arbitrary detention.7

State Protection

[19]     With regard to state protection, given that the state is the agent of persecution, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection from the state in your circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[20]     I have considered whether an internal flight alternative exists for you. Given that the state is an agent of persecution with control over the entire country, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout China and therefore a viable Internal Flight Alternative does not exist for you.

CONCLUSION

[21]     For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee and I therefore accept your claim.

(signed) Selena Qi

March 15, 2021

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27

2Exhibit 2 – Basis of Claim and Narrative.

3 Exhibit 1 – Minister’s Package.

4 Exhibit 8, Disclosure, Claimant Documents, pages 11-13.

5 Exhibit 9, Disclosure, Claimant Documents, pages 2-7.

6 Exhibit 3 – National Documentation Package for China March 2020 version, Items 12.2, 12.22, 12.23.

7 Exhibit 3 – National Documentation Package for China March 2020 version, Item 2.7.

Categories
All Countries China

2020 RLLR 134

Citation: 2020 RLLR 134
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 29, 2020
Panel: Avril Cardoso
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nkunda I. Kabateraine
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-12791
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000110-000117

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       [XXX] (the claimant) claims to be a citizen of China and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“the Act”)[1].

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim form (BOC). In summary, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution in China at the hands of the government due to his membership in the particular social group of Falun Gong practitioners.

DETERMINATION

[3]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]       The claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of China has been established on a balance of probabilities by his resident identity card[2], hukou and oral testimony[3].

Credibility

[5]       When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption of truth unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity.

The claimant practiced Falun Gong in China

[6]       I find that the claimant was introduced to Falun Gong in [XXX] 2018. He testified that he went to a park near his family home on weekends when he visited and observed people doing exercises. He testified that after speaking with one of the practitioners he confided in him that he was diagnosed with Hepatitis B which was not responding well to treatment. During his testimony, the claimant testified that he spoke with the group leader in [XXX] 2018. When confronted with the discrepancy between his narrative where he states he was introduced to the group leader on [XXX] 2018 and not [XXX] 2018, the claimant said that he was not formally introduced in [XXX] but merely chatted informally with the group leader. I reject the claimant’s explanation. The claimant is well educated. He has a [XXX] in [XXX] and worked as an [XXX] and [XXX] in China. He is [XXX] years old. His narrative specifically states that he was approached by the leader on or about [XXX] 2018. There is no mention about any prior communication only that the claimant was watching people doing exercises. Taking into account, the claimant’s education and work history, his explanation for an omission about a central event in his claim is not credible. I draw a negative inference.

[7]       The claimant testified that he joined the group practice in a corner of a park in his neighbourhood. When asked if he had any concerns about practicing in a public space considering that Falun Gong was banned in China, he testified that the group was surrounded by trees and it would be difficult to see what the group was doing and the group kept the size to six people. The claimant said he practiced with the group for about a month on Saturdays.

[8]       I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was introduced to Falun Gong in China and joined the group practice. Although there are a couple of credibility concerns, the claimant described how he was taught exercise one in a very detailed and spontaneous manner which is consistent with the Falun Gong text[4] and his testimony was generally consistent with his narrative. He submitted a medical record which indicates his diagnosis date and repeated treatments for persistent Hepatitis B which are consistent with his narrative[5]. Therefore, the credibility concerns are insufficient to undermine his overall testimony about his introduction to and practice of Falun Gong in China.

The claimant feared arrest by the PSB in China

[9]       The claimant testified that there was an incident on [XXX] 2018 which caused him to stop group practice. He testified that he was at a convenience store near the park where he practiced and saw PSB officers and vehicles outside. He said the store staff told him that some people involved in an evil cult were arrested at the park plaza and some escaped but the PSB said they would be caught and arrested. The claimant testified that he had no way to contact the group leader and since he had provided the leader with his name and address, he decided to stop group practice and instead practiced alone at home.

The claimant omitted his resignation from his job after [XXX] 2018

[10]     The claimant testified that he resigned from his job but continued to live at his rented apartment which was close to his place of work. The claimant did not mention that he stopped working in his narrative. When confronted with this omission, he testified that he did not think this was an important detail. The claimant also failed to indicate that he stopped working in [XXX] 2018 in his immigration forms but instead indicated that he continued to work until [XXX] 2018 at which time he left China. When confronted with this discrepancy, the claimant testified that he made a mistake. I reject the claimant’s explanation. Deciding to resign from one’s workplace because of fear is a detail which is directly connected to the core of this claim. The claimant was very precise in completion of his immigration forms and he is well educated and worked as an accountant, a profession that is focused on details. I draw a negative inference from this omission and discrepancy.

The claimant travelled circuitously on route to Canada

[11]     The claimant testified that an agent arranged for his departure from China. He said he left China on [XXX] 2018 and travelled through a number of Caribbean countries staying from a month to several months in each country before arriving in Canada on [XXX] 2019. When asked about this lengthy and circuitous journey, the claimant testified that he did not know the reason but was following the directions of the agent. The claimant was asked if he questioned the agent about this lengthy route and he said he did and was told not to ask too many questions.

[12]     Since the claimant was reliant on the agent to secure his arrival in Canada, the nine-month delay is reasonable under these circumstances.

The claimant is also a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada

[13]     I find that the claimant continues his Falun Gong practice in Canada. He testified that he continued to practice Falun Gong in Canada. He said he attends group practice at Milliken Park, distributes pamphlets and attends group study. The claimant provided detailed testimony about his first practice at Milliken Park and described taking the bus there and hearing the Falun Gong music as he walked through the park. He said he purchased Zhuan Falun and the Great Consummation Way of Falun Dafa at Pacific Mall. The claimant testified that he attends group practice weekly except on rainy days and he said he stopped attending once the COVID-19 lockdowns occurred. Overall his testimony was spontaneous, detailed and he elaborated with additional details when they were requested. He also submitted photos and a letter from a fellow practitioner to support his testimony[6].

Claimant demonstrated knowledge of Falun Gong consistent with his profile

[14]     I find that the claimant demonstrated Falun Gong knowledge commensurate with his profile. The claimant testified about jealousy being the most harmful attachment and explained in great detail how this attachment impedes cultivation and why it is prevalent in Chinese culture. He described the three principles and how they affect mind nature, explained the origins of karma and the purpose of the exercises. He provided an example of how he incorporates the principle of truth in his life and correctly explained that the exercises are not for the purpose of healing rather to purify the body. The claimant also explained the purpose of sending righteous thoughts and described activities such as attendance at a rally on World Falun Dafa Day and distribution of pamphlets to clarify the truth. The claimant’s testimony was very detailed, spontaneous and demonstrated in-depth knowledge about Falun Dafa.

[15]     When asked if he would continue to practice Falun Gong if he returned to China, the claimant responded in the affirmative and explained that his energy level is low and must be increased and also if he stopped practice, his karma would return and create adverse affects on his health.

Objective Basis

[16]     The objective evidence is consistent with the claimant’s account of fearing persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner in China[7].

[17]     At item 2.1 of the NDP, the US Department of State confirms that the People’s Republic of China, is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, is the paramount authority. Repression and coercion persist, including against members of banned religions and/or spiritual practices such as Falun Gong.

[18]     An IRB Response to Information Request or RIR[8] on the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners contains information that further confirms there is a serious possibility that the practice of Falun Gong will be met with persecution.

[19]     Chinese authorities continue to label Falun Gong an ‘evil cult’ in China. In particular, items 2.1 and 12.23 of the NDP reference the State’s use of harassment, intimidation, imprisonment and torture against Falun Gong practitioners. The 2019 Commission on International Religious Freedom, item 12.2, indicates that as of February 1, 2018 new regulations on religious affairs came into effect detailing strict registration criteria for religious organizations. The regulations ban unauthorized religious teaching and expands the role of local authorities in controlling religious activities. Further as of March 2018, jurisdiction over religious affairs was transferred from the State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA) to the United Front Work Department (UFWD), an organ of the CCP. International criticism of China increased during the latter half of 2018 as the scale of government crackdown on religious freedom became widely publicized.

[20]     I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution because of his Falun Gong practice has an objective basis and is well-founded, especially since he has credibly established that he was a Falun Gong practitioner in China and continues to practice in Canada.

State Protection

[21]     A state, unless in a condition of complete breakdown, is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing confirmation of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.

[22]     Given that the state is the agent of persecution, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state in his circumstances, and that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[23]     Given that the state is the agent of persecution with control over the entire country, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout China and therefore a viable IFA does not exist.

CONCLUSION

[24]     Having considered all of the evidence, I find that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would face persecution in China. I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept his claim.

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1)

[2] Exhibit 1

[3] Exhibit 4

[4] Exhibit 3, Item 12.7

[5] Exhibit 4

[6] Exhibit 4

[7] Exhibit 3

[8] Exhibit 3, Item 12.9

Categories
All Countries China

2020 RLLR 133

Citation: 2020 RLLR 133
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 10, 2020
Panel: Dawn Kershaw
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deryck Ramcharitar
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-11038
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000107-000109

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, this is a decision for [XXX] in file number TB9-11038. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence and will render my decision now orally. I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution in China based on your religion. Namely, being a member of the Church of Almighty God.

[2]       Your allegations were documented in the Basis of Claim form. In summary, you are a citizen of China who fears persecution in China because you practice your religion as a member of the Church of Almighty God. You alleged that if you return to China, you will be targeted by the Chinese government for your involvement in the Church of Almighty God and will be arrested. You alleged that there is no state protection or an internal flight alternative for you.

[3]       Your personal identity has been established by your testimony and supporting documents filed in the exhibits. Specifically, a certified copy of your passport at Exhibit 1 in addition to your original resident identification card, a copy of which is at Exhibit 5. I find that on a balance of probabilities your identity and country of reference have been established. I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds, namely religion by virtue of the fact that you are a practicing Christian who practices in the Church of Almighty God. As such, I have assessed your claim under Section 96.

[4]       I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you alleged in your oral testimony and in the Basis of Claim form. Your claim is supported by documents including a letter from the church leader of your current church in Toronto. As well as a letter of support from four fellow church members. You also provided photos of you with your fellow church members and participation in a human rights demonstration at Old City Hall at which you were demonstrating for China to return freedom of speech and religion to the Chinese people.

[5]       Your claim was also well supported by your knowledge of the tenets of the Church of Almighty God. You were able to speak knowledgeably and spontaneously about the faith. Including about the several different books of faith you read, the preaching you do in public by talking to others about God’s word. As well as where and how often you meet to discuss your faith and share your experiences.

[6]       In addition, you spoke about accessing the Church’s websites and YouTube to watch different types of singing and skits about the Church of Almighty God which you would not be able to do in China. You also had a support witness, [XXX] (ph) who said she met you when you first came to Canada. She came to Canada in 2016 and has been a member of the Church of Almighty God in Canada since that time. She was granted refugee status in Canada having also claimed on the basis of her religion. She meets together with you and others twice a week to discuss the faith and share your experiences. You also preach in public together by getting friendly with people who will talk to you and then broaching the subject of God.

[7]       The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that you were and are a practicing Christian. Practicing in the Church of Almighty God who holds views that have been outlawed in China.

[8]       On an objective basis, it is known from page 5 of Section 12.1 of the National Documentation Package for China, the NDP. Namely, the 2018 U.S. State Department report that the Chinese government considers the Church of Almighty God to be an evil cult. In addition, counsel filed additional country documentation. Namely an excerpt from Bitter Winter. It states that in October 2018, in Anhui province where the claimant lived, the provincial authorities launched an arrest operation of believers that belonged to the Church of Almighty God in multiple cities. Calculations put the number of members arrested in a two-week span at more than 100. And more than 500 left their homes and went into hiding.

[9]       Finally, in Section 12.3 of the NDP it was reported at page 24 of the 2018 Annual Report on Chinese Government Persecution of Churches and Christians in Mainland China that a meeting was held in Jiangsu province to promote the sinicization of Christianity. Making it clear that that means changing Christianity in China to Chinese Christianity. Amnesty International also reported at Section 2.2, page 4 of the NDP that in June, the State Council passed the revised regulations on religious affairs to come into effect on the 1st of February 2018. It codified far-reaching State control over every aspect of religious practice. And extended power to authorities at all levels of the government to monitor, control and potentially punish religious practice.

[10]     I find that you would not be able to practice Christianity in the Church of Almighty God freely in China without fear of repercussions. As such, I find that you have established an objective basis for your fear of persecution on a balance of probabilities.

[11]     In summary, I find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution. I find that China is enforcing the law against unauthorized religious practice. And does not sanction churches that are not registered which includes the Church of Almighty God.

[12]     As such, I find that there is no state protection available to you. I have also considered if there’s an internal flight alternative for you. I find that there is no internal flight alternative. Again, because the Chinese government is the agent of persecution and exists in all parts of the country. Therefore, it is not safe anywhere for you.

[13]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that you are a Convention refugee because of a serious possibility of persecution. And I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2020 RLLR 132

Citation: 2020 RLLR 132
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 28, 2020
Panel: Suraj Balakrishnan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Carla Sturdy
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-09017
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000103-000106

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is a decision for [XXX] claim for refugee protection.

[2]       You are claiming to be a citizen of China and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       I have considered all of the evidence including your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally.

[4]       I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of being a Falun Gong practitioner for the following reasons.

[5]       The specifics of your claim are set out in the narrative of your Basis of Claim form as amended.

[6]       You allege the following:

[7]       You are a citizen of China and you fear persecution from Chinese authorities because you are a Falun Gong practitioner.

[8]       You allege that if you return the Chinese authorities will persecute you.

[9]       You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

[10]     Your personal identity as a citizen of China has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents file in the exhibits including a certified true copy of your Chinese passport.

[11]     I find that on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established.

[12]     I find that there is a link between the harms that you fear and the Convention ground of particular social group.

[13]     This claim will therefore be assessed under Section 96.

[14]     The test under Section 96 is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should you return to China and I have found that you have met that test.

[15]     When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to the contrary.

[16]     You have been entirely consistent and credible in your evidence.

[17]     The claimant demonstrated a solid understanding of, and commitment to, Falun Gong practice and philosophy.

[18]     There have been no relevant contradictions or omissions that would go to the core of your claim.

[19]     In terms of your general credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and your Basis of Claim form as amended.

[20]     These claims were corroborated through a support letter from a fellow practitioner as well as photos of the claimant participating in Falun Gong practice and a rally in support of Falun Gong practitioners.

[21]     There’s no reason for me to cast any doubt on the veracity of these documents and as such I place good weight on them to support your allegations and claim.

[22]     Specifically, you established on a balance of probabilities that you are a Falun Gong practitioner and that Chinese authorities warned you against being a Falun Gong practitioner.

[23]     I therefore find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and I believe what you have alleged on a balance of probabilities.

[24]     The documentary evidence confirms that Chinese authorities have pursued nationwide sanctions against Falun Gong practitioners since 1999.

[25]     Amnesty International describes the state’s actions as a long-term campaign with intimidation and persecution.

[26]     The documentary evidence states that the Chinese government has carried out an unprecedented campaign against practitioners including detaining a large number of believers and abusing them in detention.

[27]     The documentary evidence states that Falun Gong adherents in China face harassment, imprisonment, and torture.

[28]     The campaign against Falun Gong has been characterized as brutal and systemic persecution; the systemic process of imprisonment without trial, escalating torture, and the murder of thousands of innocent people.

[29]     The Chinese government views Falun Gong as being an enemy of mankind and confirms the existence of re-education facilities in order to rid people who practise Falun Gong – of the obsession with what they allege to be a cult.

[30]     Based on the credible evidence provided by you with respect to your Falun Gong activities both in China and in Canada as well as the country documentation on file, I find that your fear of persecution in China at the hands of the Chinese government is objectively well-founded.

[31]     It is state authorities who have outlawed the practice of Falun Gong whom you fear. I therefore find it objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state.

[32]     I further find that the agent of persecution is the state and they are in control over the whole state.

[33]     So, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country and that there is no internal flight alternative for you.

[34]     Based on the foregoing analysis, and considering the totality of the evidence before me, I conclude that you are Convention refugee because you face a serious possibility of persecution in China.

[35]     I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2020 RLLR 128

Citation: 2020 RLLR 128
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 16, 2020
Panel: A. Casimiro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stacey Margaret Duong
Country: China
RPD Number: TB8-33095
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000077-000083

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       [XXX] (“the Claimant’) makes a claim for refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and s. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The Claimant’s allegations are fully set out in his Basis of Claim form[1] and in his testimony. He alleges that he is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and that he fears persecution by the Chinese government because he is a Falun Gong practitioner.

[3]       One of the Claimant’s co-workers died as a result of a workplace accident. The Claimant became very sad and started to develop sleeping problems. He had nightmares and dreamed about his co-worker. As a result, the Claimant woke up feeling very exhausted and depressed. He was suffering from right arm pain and was diagnosed with a shoulder muscle spasm. A friend learned about his health situation and introduced him to Falun Gong.

[4]       His friend told him that Falun Gong could help him. He explained to him the basic principles of Falun Gong, and he urged him to give it a try.

[5]       His friend agreed to teach him privately and he began to learn from him on [XXX] 2017. He experienced improvements for his condition after about two months of practicing Falun Gong with his friend.

[6]       The Claimant then decided to join the group practice with his friend on [XXX] 2017. He went to practice with the group once a week. However, the group experienced a problem on [XXX] 2018.

[7]       They found out that two members from another group of practitioners in their town were arrested by the police (“PSB”). As a result, the group suspended their practice. All the members were advised to go into hiding.

[8]       The Claimant went to hide at his wife’s cousin’s place. While in hiding, the Claimant discussed the situation with his family. The family decided that the Claimant should leave China for safety. The Claimant then used the services of a smuggler to help him get out of China.

[9]       The smuggler flew with the Claimant from Beijing to Toronto on [XXX] 2018.

[10]     After arriving in Canada, the Claimant hoped to return back to China, if the situation improved. However, he learned from his wife that the PSB came to his home to look for him. They asked his wife for his whereabouts.

[11]     His wife also learned that the group’s leader was arrested. The PSB returned to their home and left a summons for the Claimant.  The PSB also went to the homes of his close relatives to look for him.

[12]     As a result, the Claimant made a claim for refugee protection. Since arriving in Canada, he also joined a Falun Gong group.

[13]     The PSB continues to look for the Claimant in China. He fears arrest, detention and abuse if he is to return to China on account of his Falun Gong practice. The Claimant also wishes to continue practicing Falun Gong freely, which is something he could not do in China.

DETERMINATION

[14]     The panel finds that the Claimant is a Convention refugee, as he has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his membership in a particular social group as a Falun Gong practitioner.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[15]     The Claimant explained that the smuggler took his passport upon arriving in Canada as he still owed money at that time. The Claimant to this date, had failed to pay the remaining balance owing to the smuggler. He did attempt to recover his passport by trying to contact the smuggler through a relative, however they had lost contact with the smuggler. To date, he had not secured the return of his passport. However, based on his original Resident Identity card and Hukou, which were presented at the hearing and which are contained in Exhibit 6, the panel finds that the Claimant is a citizen of China and he is who he says he is on a balance of probabilities.

Credibility

[16]     The Claimant’s testimony regarding his introduction to Falun Gong, his Falun Gong practice in China, as well as his Falun Gong practice in Canada were consistent with his other evidence.

[17]     He testified that his initial hope was to return to China but after he found out from his wife that the PSB came to his home to look for him, he knew that he can no longer return to China. He testified that the PSB left a summons for him as per Exhibit 6. He also testified about the continued interest of the authorities in him back in China.

[18]     The panel notes that the Claimant claims to be a Falun Gong practitioner since [XXX] 2017. The Claimant testified that Falun Gong is a dual cultivation system. He testified about how Karma in our body creates illness and how Falun Gong could help transform Karma into Virtue (black substance transformed into white substance).

[19]     He testified about the concept of attachments and getting rid of personal attachments. He described how his friend showed him the Falun Gong exercises. He testified about some of the challenges he faced when learning the exercises. He testified that there is a total of five exercises. In the course of his testimony, he identified the first and second exercises.

[20]     He elaborated on how Karma is accumulated and how to get rid of its effects. He testified about the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance and how he applies these to his daily life. He talked about increasing one’s mind/nature.

[21]     He talked about Master Li Hongzhi and the Zhuan Falun. He testified about how his group in China had no access to the Zhuan Falun but instead utilized photocopies as part of their study. He also identified other books that are important to Falun Gong practitioners.

[22]     The Claimant also testified about his Falun Gong practice here in Canada. He testified about how he was introduced to a group of practitioners in Canada. The Claimant continues to practice the exercises at the park, he also attends a group to study the Zhuan Falun and he also distributes Falun Gong materials.

[23]     The Claimant’s profile as a Falun Gong practitioner was also supported by a number of photos depicting his practice in Canada and two letters from fellow practitioners.[2] The panel notes that the photographs appear to have been taken at numerous locations and times.

[24]     Similarly, the panel asked him why he continues to practice Falun Gong despite recovering from his health issues. He testified that practicing Falun Gong is a lifelong commitment and that one doesn’t stop practicing just because one gets/feels better.

[25]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. He has a genuine desire and plans to continue his practice of Falun Gong into the future.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[26]     The documentary evidence is clear that Falun Gong practitioners face persecution in China. Falun Gong is banned as an illegal group in China and the country conditions evidence is consistent in its reports that Falun Gong practitioners face arrest and even torture, according to several credible sources.[3]

[27]     Exhibit 3, Item 1.7 which is the United Kingdom’s Operational Guidance Note, discusses that Falun Gong practitioners over the years have been tortured, harassed, arbitrarily detained, imprisoned, and have faced other serious restrictions on their right to freedom of expression.

[28]     It explains that the Falun Gong movement has been outlawed in China, and the State regards it as an evil cult. Falun Gong practitioners have reportedly been subjected to detention, ill­ treatment, and it states that the risk of ill-treatment escalates significantly when a practitioner engages in activities that are reasonably likely to bring them to the notice of authorities. This includes the public practice of Falun Gong exercises, recruitment of new members, and dissemination of Falun Gong information. The risk of ill-treatment also increases when a person ignores a warning against continuing Falun Gong activity.

[29]     Exhibit 3, Item 2.1 the United States Department of State Report indicates that practitioners of Falun Gong reported systematic torture.

[30]     Exhibit 3, Item 12.2, indicates that the Chinese government has banned Falun Gong and labelled it an “evil cult”. Authorities regularly target Falun Gong practitioners and force them into labour camps. In detention, they suffer sexual assault, torture, violence and organ harvesting.

[31]     Therefore, the Panel finds that the Claimant’s fear is a well-founded one supported by personal and objective evidence.

[32]     The panel finds that the Claimant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner on a balance of probabilities, and so he would face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to China.

State Protection

[33]     As the state is the agent of persecution, adequate state protection would not be available to the Claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[34]     Given that the Claimant is a genuine and ongoing Falun Gong practitioner, even if he were to relocate, his risk remains the same as the State’s control exists all over China.   Since the agent of persecution is the state, there is no internal flight alternative for the Claimant, as there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

CONCLUSION

[35]     For the above reasons, the panel finds that the Claimant is a Convention refugee, as he holds a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his membership in a particular social group, as a practitioner of Falun Gong. His claim is therefore accepted.

[1] Exhibit 2.

[2] Exhibit 6.

[3] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for China (20 December 2019) Items 2.1, 12.22 and 12.23.

Categories
All Countries China

2020 RLLR 106

Citation: 2020 RLLR 106
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 13, 2020
Panel: Jean Buie
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Carla Sturdy
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-09028
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-09067
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000152-000154

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims of, I’m sorry if for mispronouncing your name, [XXX]. Can you pronounce your daughter’s name for me, [XXX]?

[2]                   Claimant:       [XXX].

[3]                   Member:        Thank you.

[4]       Citizens of China who seek refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This decision is being rendered from the Bench and a written form of the reasons may be edited. I find that you are Convention refugees, I find you have Nexus to the Convention for religion as Christians.

[5]       With respect to the allegations you provided a comprehensive Basis of Claim narrative. To summarize you are a Christian and have been since 2017. You attended an underground church in China weekly since that time. Your church was raided [XXX] 2018 at Sunday service and the leader was taken into custody. The PSB took down your name and threatened you. Your family was called to pick you up and they too were threatened when they arrived.

[6]       On [XXX] 2018, three neighborhood committee officers went to your home and conducted a re-education program. They also threatened that if you attempted to attend church again that there would be severe consequences. Your family attempted to convince you to stop going to church but as you were not willing to do so it was agreed that you and your daughter would leave.

[7]       You engaged the services of a Snakehead, applied for a U.S. visa and left China on [XXX]. You and your daughter flew though Hawaii then Seattle and then drove to the Canadian border. You made your claim shortly after arriving. You fear returning to China because you cannot practice your faith without being targeted by the PSB.

[8]       With respect to your identities, your identities were established by your testimony as well as the documents filed including copies of your passport.

[9]       Your credibility was determinative in your claim and I found you to be a credible witness today.

[10]     While I had some concerns regarding the fact that you lied in the past in an attempt to obtain a Canadian visa, and again in the application for the US visa, as well as to US immigration officials at the interview. I found that these concerns were not determinative given the overall credibility of your testimony and the other evidence you provided.

[11]     You’ve expressed a sincere Christian faith and a commitment to practice, as well as a desire to continue to raise your daughter in the Christian faith. It is an important part of your family life which you could not continue to engage in if were to return to China. This is supported by the documents you filed including your letters of support.

[12]     I found persuasive your testimony with respect to why you could not attend a State sanctioned church. Including that it places State above God which is a violation of the first Commandment, and also the importance of spreading the Gospel for which you stated is a mission given by Christ. And that you continue to engage in spreading the Gospel since coming to Canada.

[13]     Regarding state protection and availability of an internal flight alternative, I find that it is the State authorities whom you fear. You’ve been warned by State officials, have in fact undergone re-education during which you were told if you practiced again you would be severely punished. I accept that you are at heightened risk in the context of the current country conditions given this.

[14]     I also find that there is no Internal flight alternative given the State officials are the persons targeting you. I understand that the NDP documents are mixed with respect to the risk in China but for the more recent NDP as noted by your counsel references a change in circumstances, including an increase in the targeting of Christians more recently and this has taken place in your home province. Given your particular circumstances and your previous history with police contact which I found credible, I believe that if you were to return there is more than a mere possibility you would be targeted again, especially given your commitment to spreading the Gospel.

[15]     Similarly, I find the inability for your daughter to be raised in a Christian faith which you testified she has embraced herself, amounts to persecution. As noted by counsel, the country condition documents indicate that minors are specifically forbidden from attending churches or from receiving any religious information. In that respect your choice to raise your daughter in the Christian faith would itself be a risk.

[16]     Based on the evidence that you provided today as well as the country documents, I find your fear of persecution in China to be objectively well founded.

[17]     I conclude that you are both Convention refugees and I accept your claims.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2020 RLLR 80

Citation: 2020 RLLR 80
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 2, 2020
Panel: Sarah Morgan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Weng
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-25891
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000132-000134

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is a decision in the claim of [XXX], citizen of China who seeks refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  This decision is being rendered from the bench.

Determination:

[2]       I find that you are a Convention refugee based on imputed political opinion as a Falun Gong practitioner.

[3]       To summarize your allegations, you began practicing Falun Gong in [XXX] 2018.  A fellow practitioner was arrested and you were warned to stop practicing Falun Gong.  You were detained by authorities in [XXX] of 2019, forced to attend re-education classes and forced to sign a document repudiating Falun Gong.

[4]       Authorities also stopped paying your pension, and you left China as you feared further detention and ill-treatment from authorities.

Identity:

[5]       Your identity as a Chinese national is established by your passport.

Credibility:

[6]       I did find you to be a credible witness.  I note that you provided great details about your understanding of Falun Gong philosophy and about the purpose of the exercises, and I … I believe you have demonstrated a sol id understanding and commitment to the Falun Gong philosophy based on detailed answers that you gave to my Falun Gong questions.

[7]       I did find credible that your testimony that you were detained and threatened by authorities owing to your practice, as I find you gave spontaneous details about that including the documents that they gave you when they released you from detention.

[8]       I did have a credibility issue with the summons that you provided.  I noted to you the hearing that it … it doesn’t look like the summons that I have examples of, and I don’t find credible that you wanted for arrest when you left China because I … I find, given the extensive surveillance Chinese authorities have that if you were indeed a fugitive from justice that you would not have been permitted to exit China.

[9]       I do find however credible that you are a genuine Falun Gong practitioner.  I note also your activities in Canada. I find you have a sur place claim.

[10]     Also, I note the photograph that’s published by a Canadian newspaper that you are … you’re in that obviously in the newspaper, and the article shows Falun Gong practitioners in Toronto.  And I do find that increases a risk from authorities in China, given that they could be aware of your Falun Gong activities in Canada, given that your … those activities are published in a publication available everywhere.

[11]     Concerning State protection, it is the State that has outlawed the practice of Falun Gong, so I find it objectively unreasonable for you to seek their protection.

[12]     There are many documents before me, those given by your counsel and those found at Exhibit 3 confirming that authorities have pursued sanctions against practitioners since 1999, and those discovered to be practitioners face re-education camps, harassment, removal of benefits, imprisonment, and torture.

[13]     I do find, based on the evidence that you provided as well as the country documents, that your fear of persecution is objectively well-founded.

[14]     As the agent of persecution is the State and Falun Gong is banned throughout the country, I find there is not an internal flight alternative for you.

[15]     I conclude that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

[16]     Ma’am, I thank you for your testimony today. Counsel, thank you.  Madam Interpreter, I can’t say enough.  Thank you so much. Excellent interpretation.  I understand that the … the issues with having to speak really loudly with a mask to make sure that our claimant was understood and you did an excellent job.  Thank you.

[17]     INTERPRETER: My pleasure really.

[18]     MEMBER: Thank you.  Thank you all.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2019 RLLR 29

Citation: 2019 RLLR 29
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 18, 2019
Panel: Mary Lipton
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Doy Maierovitz
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-04529
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-04596
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000170-000174

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision for 45-year-old claimant, [XXX], file number TB9-04529, and her 19-year-old daughter, claimant [XXX], file number TB9-04596. I have carefully considered the evidence in this case and have decided to render my decision today orally. You will receive your notice of decision in the mail and your council will also received a copy.

[2]       The claimants, [XXX] and [XXX], claim to be citizens of China and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that you are Convention refugees for the reason that you have established that you face a serious possibility of persecution in China base on your Falun Gong practice and spiritual beliefs.

[3]       The allegations are fully set out in your Basis of Claim Form, sign on January 16, 2019. To summarize, you a mother and daughter from China, alleged that your fear persecution in China because of your Falun Gong beliefs and involvement in the practice of Falun Gong. Your mother introduced you to Master Lee’s book Zhuan Falun in [XXX], 1997, while you were a senior at the [XXX], and before the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners started in July 1999. At that time, people were already talking about the book and you were curious, so you began to read it during your winter holidays. You were profoundly impacted by the theory and principals described in the book as they reverberated with your own thinking about the universe, time, space and the human body. You have been studying and practicing Falun Gong since then.

[4]       After the persecution in 1999, you and your family were constantly harassed by the PSB. You were arrested and detained eight times from October 1999 to September 2008. The last being for four years during which you suffered abuse and torture and went on hunger strikes. Upon release since September 2008, you continued practicing Falun Gong in secret and your health improved quickly. Although the psychological scar of your experiences in prison remained.

[5]       You introduced your daughter to Falun Gong and by 2016, she was reading the Zhuan Falun on her own. Although you were busy with your career, you continued to be monitored by the PSB who would harass your husband. Fearing persecution for your daughter and yourself by Chinese authorities who have banned Falun Gong everywhere in China, you decided that you and your daughter would leave the country. You planned to leave China after your daughter had arrived safely in Canada in [XXX] 2018 and after the [XXX] 2018 was over. You applied for a passport in [XXX] 2018 and for a visa to Canada in [XXX] 2018.

[6]       After repeating attempts by the PSB to locate you, you went into hiding until the end of the summit and waited until [XXX] 2018 to move forward with your plan to come to Canada to rejoin your daughter. You left China for Canada on [XXX], 2018, from the [XXX] city airport and you wanted to avoid the [XXX] and [XXX] airports for fear of detection. Once in Canada, you immediately got involved with the Falun Gong community along with your daughter who had already been in contact with the community. You both filed for refugee protection on January 16, 2019.

[7]       I find that you have established your identities as nationals of China, on a balance of probabilities, through your testimony and the supporting documentation you presented including your Chinese resident identity cards in Hukou and copies of your passports issued by the People’s Republic of China which you provided to authorities at the time you formalized your claim.

[8]       You have also presented today at the hearing, your original resident identity cards, your Hukou and your marriage certificate. You testified in a straightforward, spontaneous and unhesitating manner and you answers to the questions, the Panel posed about the central aspects of your claim were detailed and unrehearsed. There were no material inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before the Panel.

[9]       Your testimony was consistent in content and chronology with this and the other documents you provided. In particular, your testimony about your practice of Falun Gong and in China and Canada, and your knowledge of Falun Gong was detailed, natural and clearly based on your personal experience as a practitioner. Although, I initially had concerns with the delay in claiming refugee protection in Canada, you explained that you approached the Falun Dafa Association for support in [XXX] 2018 who investigated you for two months and who referred you to council who spent the rest of time with you and your daughter gathering data and documents.

[10]     Your claim was extensively corroborated with supporting documentation which includes photographs of your participation in various Falun Gong activities in Canada, supporting letters from five Falun Gong practitioners in Canada including two supporting letters from your-, for your daughter, a supporting letter from your mother, who introduced you to Master Lee’s Book, the Zhuan Falun, in [XXX] 1997, supporting letters from your brother, sister and   husband, supporting letter from the Falun  Dafa waist drum band in Toronto of which you are a member, a news report from [XXX] a website that reports on the worldwide Falun Gong community about your [XXX] at the [XXX] provincial women’s prison where you were imprisoned from 2004 to 2008, dated June 3rd, 2005. You have also provided a decision on re-education through labour documents, a detention notice, an arrest notice, an expert opinion, conclusion from the prison in [XXX] where you were detained, the indictment, the criminal judgments, the criminal ruling and a release certificate.

[11]     More significantly, there is also the letter of support from the Falun Dafa Association [XXX] dated [XXX], 2019. The Panel has taken particular note of the letter written on your behalf from the Falun Dafa Association which verifies your Falun Gong practice here in Canada. The Panel places great weight on that letter which is supported by an Immigration and Refugee Board response to information request on the Falun Dafa Association [XXX]. In that response to information request, it states that the asso-, association set out that credibility is very important because it can save the lives of genuine practitioners who risk persecution if returned to China. They therefore only support those practitioners who are known to them and take serious steps to determine the validity of each individual claim before agreeing to support them. The document goes on to provide the list of those people that are responsible for signing these support letters and I note that in the [XXX] region it is [XXX]. The letter that you had provided is from [XXX] and he confirms that you are both Falun Gong practitioners. I find that this letter corroborates your identity as a Falun Gong practitioner with respect to you and your daughter.

[12]     In the letter, Mr. [XXX], who [XXX] president of the Falun Dafa Association [XXX], went over the rigorous procedures for the Falun Dafa Association supporting a Falun Gong practitioner in his letter. While a letter of support from the Falun Dafa Association is not determinative of any refugee claim in the Panel’s experience, such a letter is a relatively rare occurrence and is certainly one piece of evidence that the Panel takes seriously. In this case, we have a letter from the Falun Dafa Association [XXX].

[13]     For these reasons, the Panel finds that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, your Falun Gong practitioner identities and the Panel believes that your commitment to your spiritual practice is genuine. On the basis of your credible and consistent testimony and because of his consistency with the documentary evidence you have presented which I accept, the Panel believes what you have alleged, namely that you were both Falun Gong practitioners, that you were arrested and detain, that you were abused and tortured by the Chinese authorities and harassed for being a Falun Gong practitioner. And I find that you have established that you have a subjective fear of persecution in China based on your Falun Gong practice and identity as a Falun Gong practitioner with respect to you and your daughter.

[14]     The objective evidence is also consistent with your account of fearing persecution as Falun Gong practitioners in China and Canada. Specifically, I have considered the objective documentary evidence in Exhibit 3, namely the National Documentation Package, known as the NDP for China, version 31 October 2019. At Item 2.1 of the NDP, the U.S. Department of State confirm of the People’s Republic of China is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party commonly known as the CCP is the paramount authority. Repression and cohesion persist including as against members of banned religions and or sp­, spiritual practices such as Falun Gong. In Item 12.23, an Immigration Refugee Board response to information request on the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners contains information that further confirms that there is a serious possibility that the practice of Falun Gong will be met with persecution.

[15]     In Item 12.22, a 2008 report by the Falun Dafa Information Center states that family members of those who practice Falun Gong have suffered various degrees of persecution ranging from lost of employment to detention and torture. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2019, annual report in Item 12.2 indicates that the Chinese government has classified Falun Gong as an evil cult. Under article 300 of the Chinese criminal code, belonging to a banned group such as the Falun Gong is punishable with three to seven years of imprisonment or more. Throughout 2018, authorities harassed, detained, intimated Falun Gong practitioners simply for practising their beliefs. There were reports that many of the detainees suffered physical violence, psychiatric abuse, sexual assault, forced drug administration, organ harvesting and sleep deprivation. Items 2.1 and 12.23 also reference the State’s use of harassment, intimidation, imprisonment and torture against Falun Gong practitioners.

[16]     Base on the credible evidence provided by you, with respect to your Falun Gong activities both in China and in Canada, as well as the documentary evidence before the Panel, the Panel finds that your fear of persecution in China at the hands of Chinese government has an objective basis and therefore, you have a well-founded fear of persecution.

[17]     Having found that, you face a well-founded fear of persecution, on the basis of being Falun Gong practitioners, the Panel must consider whether state protection is aval-, available to you or whether you could safely live elsewhere in China without facing such risks. In this case, the Panel finds that the State is the agent of persecution. It is the state authorities who have outlawed the practice of Falun Gong whom you fear. The Panel, therefore, finds, on a balance of probabilities, that it is objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the State.

[18]     The Panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before this Panel, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a serious possibility of persecution for you throughout China given that the State is the agent of persecution and is in control of the whole country. The Panel, therefore, finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative for you in China. Based on the forgoing analysis and considering the totality of the evidence before the Panel, I therefore find that you are a Convention refugees and I accept your claims.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2019 RLLR 26

Citation: 2019 RLLR 26
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 2, 2019
Panel: Daniel Mckeown
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohammed Tohti
Country: China
RPD Number: TB8-31053
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-31087, TB8-31110
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000159-000161

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I’ve considered the testimony and evidence in this claim and I am now prepared to render a decision in IRB file number TB8-31053. The claimants seek refugee protection against China pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and this claim is accepted.

[2]       This claim was based on the following allegations. The claimants are ethnic Uyghurs. They left China in 2014 so that the adult male claimant could work in Malaysia fearing current pol-, Chinese policies towards Uyghurs. The claimants fear for their lives if they were to return to China. The claimants left Malaysia and came to Canada on November 20th, 2018. They signed their Basis of Claims on December 8th, 2018.

[3]       The identity of the claimants were established on the basis of their Chinese passports. The originals of which were seized by the Minister.

[4]       The Panel had no significant concerns about this claim. There was one potential exclusion issue, given that the claimants had Malaysian residence permits in their passports. However, those residence permits are also-, also clearly state that their residence was dependent upon the validity of their passports. Which means that in order for the claimants to continue legally residing in Malaysia, they would have to renew their passports with the Chinese government at some point in the foreseeable future. Given the claimants ethnicity and the government of China is the agent of persecution, it would not be reasonable to expect the claimants to have their Chinese passports renewed. They could not reasonably exercise any right to residency in Malaysia, therefore even if it was available to them and of akin to Malaysian citizenship.

[5]       The sole determinative issue in Uyghurs-, in Uyghur claims in this Panel’s view is the identity of the claimants as Uyghur. That is because of the brutally persecutory nature of the Chinese government towards the Uyghur people. This Panel has access to reliable and credible resources such as the U.K. Home Office report and the US DOS report. Each of which make clear that the Chinese government has oppressed the Uyghur people in virtually every aspect of their lives. Some reports even suggest that as many as two million Uyghur people are now detained in concentration camps.

[6]       The country conditions evidence is suggestive that the Chinese policy of assimilation has now arguably moved into the realm of genocide. For this reason, in this Panel’s view, identity as an ethnic Uyghur is sufficient to establish persecution.

[7]       In this claim, the claimant presented their passports which noted their places of birth in [XXX] province. The claimants spoke Uyghur. And the Panel had no reason to disbelieve any of the evidence or testimony. The Panel finds that the claimants are indeed likely ethnic Uyghurs. Whereas the State is the agent of persecution, the claimants have rebutted the presumption that state protection would be adequate and forthcoming to them. Likewise, there is no location in China where they can go where they would not face a serious possibility of persecution.

[8]       For all these reasons, the Panel finds that this claim is credible. The claimants’ fear is well-founded. The claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their ethnicity.

[9]       The claimants are Convention refugees and this claim is accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-