Category: China

Categories
All Countries China

2021 RLLR 97

Citation: 2021 RLLR 97
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 3, 2021
Panel: Roman Kotovych
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohammed Tohti
Country: China
RPD Number: TC1-03298
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]        MEMBER:  These are my reasons for decision.  The claimant in this case requests refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]        The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim form.  In summary he’s alleged to be a Chinese Uyghur male who seeks protection on the basis of ethnic persecution in China for his Uyghur ethnicity.

[3]        I find, sir, you to be a Convention refugee and my reasons are as follows.

[4]        First, on the issue of identity I’m satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established your personal identity and your citizenship.  I base that on the copy of the passport that you presented.  I’m also satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established your Uyghur heritage.  I find this on a combination of factors including the name present in your passport which I know from experience gained in doing this job, points to being a Uyghur; the birthplace as noted in your passport, which similarly is the Autonomous zone in China; the fact that you testified today in the Uyghur language; you did present a identity card to the camera which I could not read and therefore can make minimal use of but the Arabic script on that card I, I do also have some experience with that that points in that direction; as well as your overall testimony today to point to your Uyghur ethnicity.

[5]        So on a balance of probabilities from the evidence before me largely gained from the passport and from your testimony and the language spoken I find in the circumstances that to be sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities your Uyghur ethnicity.

[6]        I find that the persecution you’ve alleged has a nexus through Section 96 of ethnicity and nationality along with elements of religion.  I find that you would face on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution returning to China on the basis of your ethnicity.  This was not a well documented case and I would expect more on a refugee claim with no disclosure from a claimant; however, in the circumstances in the particular circumstances of the country conditions in China, your testimony in appearing before the hearing and the particular circumstances of Uyghurs in China in the particular circumstances of this claim, it is sufficient.  You testified about your past experience in China; your treatment in the past as a Uyghur; what you fear returning; the decisions you made in Malaysia; how you decided to make a refugee claim; and, the reasons why you have had limited contact with your parents in China which would explain some of the limited ability to get disclosure from that country.

[7]        This is supported by the objective country conditions in the NDP which point strongly to the mistreatment of Uyghurs by Chinese authorities as alleged by you, sir, and I do find sufficient objective evidence in the circumstances of this case to point to a serious possibility of persecution going forward in returning to that country.

[8]        On the issue of state protection given that it is the state authorities in China you fear, I find that it would be unreasonable for you to seek protection from them.

[9]        Finally, on the issue of Internal Flight Alternative, I find a lack of Internal Fight Alternative as there is evidence in the country conditions of mistreatment of Uyghurs throughout China and I find in the circumstances that there would not be a location in China where you would not face this serious possibility of harm.

[10]      So for all the above reasons I find you to have a well-founded fear of persecution under Section 96.  For these reasons I find you to be a Convention refugee under the IRPA and I therefore accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2021 RLLR 87

Citation: 2021 RLLR 87
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 2, 2021
Panel: Avril Cardoso
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jordana Rotman
Country: China
RPD Number: TC0-01847
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]        MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX XXXX 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. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally.

Determination

[2]        I find that you are a Convention refugee on the ground of religion for the following reasons.

Allegations

[3]       You allege the following. You were introduced to Christianity while working in Suriname in June 2017 from fellow Chinese ex-patriots. You returned to China and continued your Christian practice. In July 2018, while at a house church service, the PSB raided the home. After being interrogated and warned, you decided to leave China. With the aid of a smuggler, you came to Canada and claimed protection.

[4]       You allege if you return, you face persecution. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an Internal Flight Alternative.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]       I find that your personal identity as a citizen of China has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony, your RIC, passport and marriage certificate contained in Exhibits 5 and 6. I find that there is a link between what you fear and the Convention ground of religion and your claim is therefore assessed under Section 96.

Exclusion

[6]       You resided in Suriname from XXXX 2014 to XXXX 2015. From XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2017 and again from XXXX 2018 to XXXX 2018, I have considered whether you are excluded from protection under Article 1E of the refugee Convention. I find that you do not have status substantially similar to Suriname nationals, nor did you previously have such status or access to such status. To obtain permanent status, you testified that you require residence for five years and a stable job. The evidence establishes that you resided in Suriname on a temporary basis subject to renewable residence permits. If you allowed a permit to expire, you would not be allowed re-entry and had to reapply. In support of your testimony, you submitted your Suriname residence permit, foreigner’s registration and the judicial decision to extend your stay until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. The federal court has held that where the country a claimant has taken up residence is tentative, they do not fall within the ambit of Article 1E. I therefore find that you are not excluded.

Credibility

[7]       In terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim form. Your overall testimony was spontaneous, detailed, forthcoming and without embellishment. It was entirely consistent with your narrative. I find that you were introduced to Christianity in June 2017 while living in Suriname. Your testimony was detailed and most compelling. You described in detail what transpired at the house church service, explained how you were taught to pray and related the story of David and Goliath which you explained touched you briefly.

[8]       You testified that at the time you were scared because of an event which transpired and you were afraid of going out. You said that you learned God would protect you as you saw David prevail against Goliath with God’s support and you slept peacefully when you returned home that evening. In support of your testimony, you submitted a letter from a fellow house church member in Suriname, contained in Exhibit 6. I find that you continue to practice your faith at the house church when you returned to China in XXXX 2017. You testified that the services were held at Mr. XXXX home and he was a group leader. You said there were 10 members and identified the pastor. You described your baptism in great detail and explained the meaning of baptism to Christians. I note that the baptism process outlined in the True Jesus belief, disclosure contained in Exhibit 7. You also submitted a baptism certificate from the pastor in China contained in Exhibit 6. I find that you were questioned by the PSB on July 22, 2018 and accept this event as declared in your narrative.

[9]       You testified that you were able to exit China and did not encounter issues going through security. I find this is reasonable as you do not indicate that the PSB detained or charged you and it is therefore unlikely that your name would have been recorded. When asked why you needed to obtain a Canadian visa in August 2018 when you were in possession of a valid US visa, you testified that the smuggler advised you to do so as Canada embraced freedom of religion. I draw no negative inference against your credibility as you relied on an agent to leave China and you left China in XXXX 2018, only weeks after you were interrogated by the PSB. I find that your delay in claiming protection for 14 months is reasonable. You relied on advice from the agent, as well as your sister, who lives in Canada. You explained that the smuggler told you that without identity documents, your claim would fail and you would be deported to China. When asked if your sister helped to obtain legal advice in Canada, you said she made some telephone calls and was informed that you should expect a hearing in three to five months, and since you did not have your identity documents, your claim would be unlikely to succeed.

[10]     I find that you are a genuine Christian. You provided detailed and spontaneous testimony about your activities at the church you attend in Canada, which is materially consistent with the letter provided by the church you attend and can be found at Exhibit 6. You also testified about the 5 rules and 10 beliefs of True Jesus adherence spontaneously and in detail. Your testimony about the meaning and impact of your faith in your life was most compelling.

[11]     You explained that before you became a Christian, you consumed alcohol and did not listen to your parents and felt alone. You testified that you learned that you should be inspired by the Holy Spirit and not alcohol. You should listen to your parents in accordance with the 10 commandments and most importantly you learned that you can depend on God and pray to God for solutions. You said your faith has made you an easygoing person. I therefore find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and corroborating documents.

Objective Basis

[12]     Your fear of being deported to China in the present circumstances is a fear that is well-founded in the objective documents. The US Department of State report in 2.1 writes about the state in position of draconian restrictions on freedom of religion or belief. Authorities continue to imprison citizens for reasons related to politics and religion. The US International Religious Freedom Report writes about the 2019 to 2024 campaign of Sinicization to bring all religious doctrine and practice in line with CCP doctrine, the government offered financial incentives to law enforcement to arrest religious practitioners and to citizens who reported illegal religious activity. There are multiple reports of harassment and threats in Fujian province where you lived, this is in 12.1.

[13]     The US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2021 report says that Chinese authorities harassed, detained, arrested and imprisoned members of protestant house churches who refuse to join the state sanctioned three self patriotic movement, this is in 12.2. A request for information report writes that authorities have repeatedly stated that one of the aims of the new regulations is to eliminate independent house churches compelling most of them to become part of the (inaudible) in 12.28. Your Counsel has also submitted objective country condition evidence which supports a well-founded fear. There is a report that the True Jesus Church in Hanon, Province has been forcibly demolished by Chinese authorities. This is contained in Exhibit 6.

State Protection

[14]     There is a presumption of state protection unless the state is in a condition of complete breakdown. This presumption may be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the agent of persecution is the state. As the persecution you would face should you return to China is at the hands of the authorities, accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to you.

Internal Flight Alternative

[15]     I have also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you. I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout China and therefore no Internal Flight Alternative is available to you as the state is the agent of persecution and will be motivated to find you.

CONCLUSION

[16]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

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 ———-