2022 RLLR 125
Citation: 2022 RLLR 125
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 14, 2022
Panel: Warren Woods
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Patricia Ritter
Country: China
RPD Number: TB6-18589
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision in the claim for refugee protection concerning XXXX XXXX XXXX a citizen of China. It’s RPD file number TB6-18589.
[2] The date of the hearing is March 14, 2022, and the date of the decision and reasons are the same date.
[3] The claimant was represented by counsel, Patricia Ritter, and also, XXXX XXXX was appointed as a designated representative to represent the interests of the claimant, due to her medical condition.
[4] The file has a somewhat complicated history.
[5] The claimant filed her claim for protection in Canada, in late 2016. She underwent an initial hearing, a first hearing, in December 2017 at the RPD, and reasons for refusal were issued by the first instance, RPD decision, in January 2018. That Member found the claimant’s … lacking in areas of credibility.
[6] The claimant appealed to the Refugee Protection Division and that division, in July 2019, issued its reasons, overturning the RPD decision.
[7] At paragraph 20 of the RAD decision, the RAD found that the claimant’s ability to testify was compromised by her mental health, and that the RPD’s adverse credibility findings could not stand. It would be unfair, inappropriate to stand, based on the claimant’s mental health at the time of her testimony, at the first hearing.
[8] The allegations are set out in the claimant’s BOC and amended BOC forms, in Exhibit 1, in the RAD file.
[9] In short, the claimant alleged that she’s a practicing member of the Falun Gong faith. That her past activities came to the attention of the Public Security Bureau in China, and that she came to Canada, and continued to practice here.
DETERMINATION
[10] For the following reasons, on a balance of probability, the Panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, in China today, if she were to return.
[11] Therefore, the Panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee.
[12] The identity of the claimant was not challenged during the process.
[13] The Panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant is who she claims to be, her personal identity, as well of being a citizen of China. She obviously received the temporary resident visa in 2016, so Canadian officials in the source country did not have any concerns about the genuineness of her identity.
[14] And in terms of preliminary matters, the Counsel, for the claimant, provided several items of medical, the disclosure in Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5. These materials were from two (2) doctors: a XXXX XXXX XXXX, and a XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant has been diagnosed with a XXXX XXXX XXXX, and as well as other mental health challenges that might cause her memory to become difficult for her. And also, she has had some experiences with XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[15] So in light of this, firstly, the Panel accepts that evidence as credible and trustworthy, and finds no reason to dispute what it says. But for those reasons, in advance of the hearing, the RPD appointed a designated representative suggested by Counsel, Madam XXXX XXXX, who was present today, and at the pre-hearing conference provided guidance to the Member on the limitations of the claimant’s testimony today, in order to not traumatize her.
[16] And in conjunction with that, the Member made a formal declaration that Guideline 8, the vulnerable claimants’ Guidelines, would be invoked. And the claimant benefitted from the procedural accommodations in there to have, for example, Counsel questioned the claimant first instead of the Member, and to break briefly, and ensure active communication with the claimant, to ensure that the process wasn’t causing her undue emotional distress.
[17] The central issue of the claim was credibility, and, in particular, whether the Panel accepts as credible the claimant’s assertions that she’s a practicing member of the Falun Gong faith. In this regard, her counsel questioned her about some of the history of the movement, some of the doctrines, the leadership, and other significant characteristics of the Falun Gong practice.
[18] The claimant was able to corroborate the three (3) universal principles of the faith; the five (5) exercises; the intellectual author, Master Li, and other in his books; when Falun Gong was banned in China; and other major features of the faith.
[19] The claimant also testified to her participation in events in the Toronto area upon her arrival, before she moved to Kitchener, and before the advent of the coronavirus prevented in-person gatherings.
[20] The claimant’s testimony is accepted as credible and trustworthy. There was no major concerns concerning her statements, and the objective country and origin information concerning the Falun Gong movement, set out in the NDP at Item 12, in the items under religion and Item 12 of the NDP.
[21] Internal flight alternative and state protection were not canvassed as (inaudible) issues because the agent of persecution is the Chinese state, Public Security Bureau, and it would not be appropriate to ask the claimant to seek protection from authorities that are responsible for banning the Falun Gong practice.
[22] The objective country origin evidence indicates little to no tolerance of the Falun Gong faith today in China, and also sets out numerous examples of practitioners being jailed and being persecuted.
[23] So for all of these reasons, the Panel finds that the claimant has satisfied her burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution in China today.
[24] And as such, in conclusion, the Panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee under Section 96 of the IRPA and accepts her claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———