2022 RLLR 119
Citation: 2022 RLLR 119
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 16, 2022
Panel: Samin Rajaian
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nkunda I. Kabateraine
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-16727
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-17197, TB9-17226
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. You are claiming to be citizens of China and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally.
[3] The Minister has intervened in this case on the ground of credibility. I find that you are Convention refugees due to your religious belief and practice.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] MsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXMr. XXXX XXXX, you are husband and wife. MrXXXX XXXX XXXX, you testified that you are the cousin of MrXXXX XXXX XXXX. The details of your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim forms and your oral testimony.
[5] In short, you allege that if you return to China, you would be persecuted by the Chinese government because all three of you are Christians and because you practiced your faith at house churches which are not permitted by the government.
[6] MrXXXX XXXX XXXX, you allege that you have joined a house church in China in April 2017 and continued to attend that church on a weekly basis until you came to Canada.
[7] Ms. XXXX, you allege that you started to learn about Christianity around August to October 2017 and that you started attending a house church from October 2017 on a weekly basis.
[8] MrXXXX XXXX XXXX, you allege that you started attending the house church in January 2018 on the invitation of your wife.
[9] You allege that you had separately decided to come to Canada because you heard news of members of nearby house churches facing problems with authorities. You allege that Mr. XXXX XXXX and Ms. XXXX first revealed to Mr. XXXX XXXX in April 2019 that they were planning on leaving China because they had become Christians. At this time, Mr. XXXX XXXX also revealed that he had also become a Christian and was planning to leave China.
[10] You all came to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2019 with the assistance of a snakehead and made refugee claims at the end of June 2019. You all allege that you have been attending church in Canada either in person or virtually since you came to Canada.
IDENTITY
[11] I find that your personal and national identities have been established on a balance of probabilities by your Chinese passports which I observed remotely during the hearing and copies of which have been provided in Exhibit 7 and 8.
NEXUS
[12] The nexus in this case is your religion; therefore, your claims are assessed under Section of IRPA.
CREDIBILITY
[13] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are indeed true unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity. The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.
[14] In terms of your general credibility, I found all three of you to be credible witnesses. You all testified in a straightforward and spontaneous manner about your religious practices in China and in Canada. There were no significant or material inconsistencies or contradictions in your evidence. I expected a relatively high level of religious knowledge from you as you allege to be practicing Christianity for over four years. I have questioned you rather extensively on your religious knowledge and found that all three of you possess religious knowledge that is consistent with the duration and frequency with which you have practiced your faith.
[15] You have submitted corroborative documents in support of your claim; these documents include photos of you at church in Canada and a letter from our pastor in Canada. I give these documents full weight in corroborating your testimony.
[16] There was one inconsistency between the schedule A forms of Ms. XXXX and Mr. XXXX XXXX about whether or not they lived at the same address for some time in Chia. This is a peripheral matter and I find this to be a minor inconsistency which I cannot draw a negative inference from. My main concern was regarding the sincerity of your faith as both Mr. XXXX XXXX and Mr. XXXX XXXX testified that your children have not been baptized despite you all having access to pastors in your village in China and your belief in the sacrament of baptism. You both testified that you want your children to decide whether they want to be baptized later in life. Given the totality of the evidence and your level of religious knowledge, I find that the issue of your children’s baptism is not a matter based on which I can draw a significant inference and it is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of truthfulness.
[17] With respect to the Minister’s evidence that you all entered Canada at the same time, I note that the Minister’s counsel has not provided submissions on this matter and what inference, and has not stated what inference the Minister’s counsel believes the panel should draw from this. I do not find it relevant to your allegation that you are Christians. I am aware of the prevalence of immigration fraud and the use of fraudulent documents; however, these are matters that should be dealt with at the border and at visa offices, not at refugee hearings.
[18] I do find the issue of a relative who is also a Christian fleeing to Canada at the same time to be relevant to the claim; therefore, I asked you why you had not mentioned in your narratives that your cousin was also a Christian and had fled China at the same time. Both Mr. XXXX XXXX and Mr. XXXX XXXX testified that you were not aware you needed to state this as you had made your claims separately. As there is nothing in the Basis of Claim form or other refugee intake forms that asks claimants to identify any other Christians whom they know and who traveled with them to Canada, I find your explanations to be reasonable and do not draw a negative inference from this omission.
[19] Considering the totality of the evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that you are all Christians and that you have a subjective fear of persecution in China.
OBJECTIVE BASIS
[20] The objective documentary evidence regarding the treatment of Christians in China is mixed. According to Freedom House, religious groups’ ability to practice their beliefs varies dramatically based on religious affiliation, location, and registration status. Similarly, Australia’s de facto states that unregistered Christian churches face restrictions that vary widely according to local conditions effectively making it difficult to form general conclusions. However, the trend that I can discern based on the totality of the objective evidence is that the crackdown on religious practice has increased in China since 2018.
[21] Item 12.28 of the NDP reference a representative of the Asia team of CSW, an NGO based in the UK that advocates for religious freedom rights and protections in 20 countries citing their conversation with a Christian legal expert that what had previously been religious rules that were not strictly enforced between the 2018 regulations have since turned into a push for Christians to only have religious activities at designated sites.
[22] The same source reports that since the implementation of the 2018 regulations on religious affairs, Chinese authorities have increased crackdowns on unregistered religious groups. The China Aid Association states in its 2019 annual report on the treatment of Christians in China that authorities have continued to carry out the central government’s orders to force religion to place the Chinese government’s ideals at its centre and officials arrest those resist. Amnesty International adds that authorities have removed crosses and Christian slogans from church buildings, confiscated or vandalized church properties, ordered churches to close, and questioned church leaders and members.
[23] Specifically with respect to treatment of protestants, item 12.23 states unregistered protestant churches risk adverse treatment by authorities due to their illegal status. Adverse treatment can include raids and destruction of church property. Pressure to join or report to government sanctioned religious organizations and on occasion violence and criminal sanction particularly in regard to land disputes with local authorities.
[24] You all testified that you frequently attend church and that you spread the gospel. The federal court has held that religious persecution can include prohibitions on public or private worship and on giving or receiving religious instructions; therefore, I conclude that there is sufficient objective country evidence to ground the objective basis of your claims.
STATE PROTECTION
[25] As the state is the agents of persecution in this case, I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted and that there is no adequate state protection available to you.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE
[26] I find that there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative for you anywhere in China because the government is the agents of persecution and that there are various levels of restrictions on the practice of Christianity across China.
CONCLUSION
[27] I conclude that you would face a serious possibility of persecution if you were to return to China and therefore I find you to be Convention refugees and accept your claims.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———