2022 RLLR 121

Citation: 2022 RLLR 121
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 12, 2022
Panel: Oluwabunmi Bosede
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter R Neill
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-05995
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is a decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, a citizen of China, who claims refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. And this decision has been rendered from the bench. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. I find that you would face a serious possibility of persecution if you were to return to China, on the grounds of your political opinion. And I therefore find that you are a Convention refugee, and I accept your claim.

[2]       The allegations are found in your Basis of Claim form marked as Exhibit 2. And to summarize your Basis of Claim form, you testified to — left India — sorry, left China, because you owe a loan shark money, and that you would — you were threatened to be killed. You further testify that you paid the loan shark after you arrived in Canada, and that you do not owe the loan shark anymore. You testified that you joined the democratic party of Canada after you arrived in 2019 April. And because — you joined this party because you had interest in fighting for the democratic right of the people of China.

[3]       Your father testified that you are a registered member of the DPC, and you attend all the party’s activities. And that your party activities have come to the attention of the authorities in China, as a warrant of arrest was issued against you while you were here in Canada. I found that your identity as a national of China is established by your testimony, and by the document that you provided, which includes a copy of your Chinese passports, and other documents on file. There is a clear nexus between what you fear in China and section 96. And namely on the grounds of your political opinion as a member of the Democratic Party of Canada — so — of China, sorry. And this claim is assessed under section 96.

[4]       Overall, I find that you were a credible witness, and there were no material inconsistencies between your testimony and the documents you disclosed. I found that your testimony was straightforward and spontaneous. And based on your testimony, the documents you disclosed, and the information provided in your Basis of Claim form narrative and your amendment, I noticed there were no serious credibility issues.

[5]       You testified about why you joined the DPC. You testified about the activities of the party since you joined in April (inaudible) and the role you played at each of these activities. You explained the (inaudible) events and all the parades that took place at the city hall once every month. You are also testified about the weekly meetings you attended online every XXXX. You explained what the mission of the DPC is, and why it resonates with you. You testified that you would have that you have participated in various programs organized by the party, and that you have appeared in various public events of the party. And your pictures, photographs, and videos have been captured at this event.

[6]       And so, part of your political activities — you provided a package of documents which includes various letters from your party leaders, photographs of attending and participating in the DPC public activity — and events here in Toronto, Ontario. You also provided an arrest warrant issued against you by the PSB. I have assessed this document and I find each of them to be reliable evidence and assign them full weight in support of your allegations.

[7]       I find that your subjective fear of persecution in China due to your political activities and being a member of the DPT in Canada — sorry, of the DPC in Canada, is objectively well-founded. The country documentation before the Panel is the most NDP package for China, dated May 31st, 2022. And this NDP package corroborates your claim, that the Chinese authorities continue to persecute whistleblowers and political presidents. For example, 8.1 states that one (1) of the most significant human right problems in China is the arbitrary detention, physical attack, and criminal prosecution against human rights activists, dissidents, and those seeking redress for injustice of the current government.

[8]       Item 2.7 also indicates that China is not free with respect of — with respect to political rights and civil liberations. And the regime has become increasingly repressive in recent years. The fact that human right defenders, dividends (sic), and anti-corruption activists in China — and monitored and detained is also highlighted in Item 2.2 and 2.11. With regards to your membership in the DPC in Toronto, Ontario. The country information at Item 2 — sorry, at Item 4.4 and 4.1 of the NDP confirms that the — confirms your allegation that the DPC is a banned organization. And that the government monitors, detains, and imprison — current and former DPC members.

[9]       Based on the above cited country conditions evidence in the most recent NDP for China, and as well as the documentary evidence — country condition disclosed by the claimant’s Counsel, and the claimant’s credible allegation, I find that you have established there is a serious possibility that you will be prosecuted if you were to return to China by reason of your political opinion.

[10]     Since the state is the agent of persecution in this case, I found that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state. And therefore, you have rebutted the presumption of state protection. I further find that there is no — there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout China. And there is no viable internal flight alternative, given that the documentary evidence states that the authority operates similarly throughout the country in China. Therefore, based on the totality of evidence in this case, I found that you would face a serious possibility of prosecution if you were to return to China. And I therefore find that you are a Convention refugee, and I accept your claim. 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———