2022 RLLR 133

Citation: 2022 RLLR 133
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 23, 2022 [note that date of reasons is April 7, 2022]
Panel: Milton Israel
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-05405
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

[1]       XXXX the claimant, a citizen of China, seeks refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

 

[2]       The initial hearing was scheduled for December 10, 2021. It was postponed because of technical problems. The original claim was made by the claimant and his wife, XXXX the principal claimant. Since that time, the claimant’s wife passed away and the claimant, who is 90 years old, was hospitalized as the result of XXXX. The claimant participated in the hearing while hospitalized. His son XXXX was appointed the claimant’s designated representative, and his lawyer’s services were terminated. The claimant’s son disclosed documentation concerning his representation of the claimant, his father’s Power of Attorney, his mother’ s death certificate and medical documentation concerning the claimant.[1]

 

[3]       The panel provided an oral decision at the conclusion of the March 23, 2022, hearing granting refugee protection on the basis of the claimant’s risk of cruel and unusual punishment if he were to return China. The following is the panel’s written reasons.

 

ALLEGATIONS

 

[4]       The claimant alleged the following in his Basis of Claim Form narrative (BOC):

 

[5]       The claimant fears return to China where he faces arbitrary arrest and torture. He alleges he will be targeted for alleged religious affiliation because of his association with his friend XXXX was arrested with others by the PSB for their underground church activities. The claimant further alleges he is targeted because of his perceived religious affiliation and his failure to report as required.

 

THE ISSUE

 

[6]       The determinative issue as to this claim is credibility.

 

[7]       The claimant was questioned as to his allegations. The panel notes the claimant’s son, his designated representative, indicated in his written disclosure noted above that the claimant could provide only one-word answers because of his medical condition. The panel further notes that the claimant was able to provide more substantial responses to the panel’s questions, although there was clear evidence of some confusion and memory lapses.

 

[8]       The claimant was asked why he was making a claim and he responded that he would be punished at home. He further testified that there were arrests of members of a ‘mafia group’. The designated representative indicated that the claimant was referring to an underground church, but the claimant testified he was not.

 

[9]       The claimant further testified he feared return to China because the PSB believed he was connected to a group of people in his village who had been arrested.

 

[10]     The claimant was asked what these people did to attract the interest of the PSB. He responded they got together and gave speeches. He was further asked what they talked about. The claimant responded he did not know but he was deemed to be connected to them. He was further asked where they met, and he testified in a house. He was asked whether they met weekly, or every day and he responded he forgot.

 

[11]     The claimant was asked why they were arrested, and he responded he did not know. Her was further asked whether he had ever been arrested and he said no, but he was questioned. He testified as well that he was questioned but he did not know anything about their concerns. He further testified that whenever something was associated with the group, the PSB would look for him.

 

[12]     The designated representative indicated that after his father arrived in Canada, a neighbour informed them that the police came to look for him during the new year holiday. The designated representative further indicated that his father told him that he met a pastor many years ago at a wedding and the pastor came to his village to spread religion. Subsequently someone was sick, and the family came to his father and asked for help. His father introduced the family to the pastor and various activities were organized. As a result, the people who the claimant introduced to the pastor were arrested. The designated representative indicated this is what his father and mother told him.

 

[13]     The claimant was asked whether he met a pastor in China. He responded yes and he agreed with what his son said about his experience in China.

 

[14]     The panel acknowledges the claimant’s age and medical condition made an impact on his responses to the panel’s questions. The panel finds however, that the claimant was able to provide sufficient information consistent with his allegations to allow the panel to find on a balance of probabilities, that he is being pursued by the PSB because of his presumed association with underground church activities.

 

[15]     Therefore, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities, the claimant cannot return to China without a risk of cruel and unusual punishment, and his claim is accepted.

 

(signed) Milton Israel

 

April 7, 2022

 

 

[1] Document 6, CLOD