2022 RLLR 135
Citation: 2022 RLLR 135
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 4, 2022
Panel: Suraj Balakrishnan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jordan Duviner
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-27542
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The claimant, XXXX alleges that he is a citizen of China, and is claiming refugee protection in Canada pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
DETERMINATION
[2] Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant has established that he would face a serious possibility of persecution in China due to his imputed anti-government political opinion.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The specifics of the claim are set out in the narrative of the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form (BOC).[1] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations.
[4] The claimant alleges that he is a citizen of China. He fears persecution by Chinese authorities because of his imputed anti-government political opinion on account of his involvement in protests against land expropriation.
IDENTITY
[5] The claimant’s identity has been established, on a balance of probabilities, through his testimony, as well as documentation filed; namely, copies of his Resident Identity Card,[2] household registration booklet,[3] and passport,[4] as well as his original passport that he presented at the hearing.
NEXUS
[6] The panel finds that there is a nexus between the harms that the claimant fears and the claimant’s imputed anti-government political opinion. The claim will therefore be assessed pursuant to section 96 of IRPA. The test under section 96 is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to China and the panel has found that the claimant has met that test.
CREDIBILITY
[7] When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to the contrary. In general, the claimant’s testimony was consistent with his BOC and his testimony was forthright, with no apparent attempt to embellish. The claimant testified and indicated in his BOC that he XXXX. In April of 2019, the claimant and other households in his village received notices indicating that the land would be expropriated. Members of the affected households disagreed with the compensation provided. They met with each other, obtained appraisals, drafted and signed a petition, and appointed the claimant’ s brother and four others to be representatives.
[8] The representatives tried negotiating with the village, town, and city level governments, but they were rejected. From May 10, 2019 to May 12, 2019, the members of the affected households protested in front of the city government building. They shouted slogans and held banners criticizing the government and government officials. On May 12, 2019, the police arrived to break up the protest. They arrested some protestors, including the claimant’s brother. The claimant ran away and eventually came to Canada.
[9] The claimant’s credibility was not perfect. For example, the claimant had trouble remembering accurately the various dates of the various events in his BOC. However, the panel notes that the claimant has limited education and was visibly nervous during the hearing. Given these factors, and the strength of the rest of the claimant’s testimony and supporting documents, the panel does not draw a material negative inference on the claimant’s credibility or the credibility of his allegations. As another example, the claimant indicated in his BOC that he protested in front of the town government building, but at the hearing he testified that it was in front of the city government building. When asked about this discrepancy, the claimant testified that the information in his BOC must have been an error. While this is a significant discrepancy, given the quality of the claimant’ s testimony about the protest itself and his supporting documents, the panel does not draw a material negative inference on the claimant’ s credibility or the credibility of his allegations.
[10] The claimant produced documentation in support of his claim. This includes (i) the land XXXX[5] related to the use of the land that the claimant XXXX, (ii) the land expropriation
notice,[6] corroborating the claimant’s allegation that the government wanted to expropriate his land, and (iii) a detention notice for his brother,[7] indicating that the claimant’s brother has been arrested on May 12, 2019, for engaging in “anti-government activities and slandering the government officers and impeding the officers from carrying out their duties.”[8] The panel notes that the detention notice appears consistent with the samples available in the objective documentary evidence.[9] These submissions help confirm key aspects of the incidents described by the claimant in his testimony and BOC. There is no reason for the panel to cast any doubt on the veracity of these submissions and as such the panel places good weight on these submissions to support his allegations and overall claim.
[11] Specifically, the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that (i) Chinese authorities sought to expropriate the claimant’ s land, (ii) the claimant took various steps to oppose the expropriation or receive higher compensation, (iii) the claimant shouted slogans and held banners criticizing the Chinese government and government officials, and (iv) Chinese authorities cracked down on the third protest, whereafter the claimant’s brother was detained.
[12] Given the claimant’s credible testimony as well as the corroborating documentation cited above, the panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness. Therefore, the panel believes what the claimant has alleged in support of his claim and finds that his subjective fear of persecution is established, on a balance of probabilities.
OBJECTIVE BASIS
[13] The objective documentary evidence supports a finding that there would be a serious possibility of the claimant facing persecution upon return to China. The UK Home Office notes that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) deems land issues to be sensitive, and this can lead to little tolerance for public dissent.[10] There are about 100,000 incidents of protests, riots and other forms of social disorder in China a year.[11] This can lead to deaths, beatings, harassment and imprisonment; those who protest often face violence from police and thugs, and are arrested and placed in Re-education Through Labour Centres.[12] Recourses are limited, and harassment of residents is ignored.[13]
[14] In this case, the claimant protested against the government and criticized the government and government officials. Further, the claimant’s brother, who protested with him, was arrested. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s fear of returning to China has an objective basis. The claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in China.
STATE PROTECTION
[15] The panel finds that the Chinese government is the agent of persecution in this case. The country conditions cited above confirm that the state is in fact persecuting individuals like the claimant.
[16] The panel therefore finds, that in this case, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in China.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)
[17] The panel considered whether a viable IFA exists for the claimant. The agent of persecution is the Chinese government. The documentary evidence cited above confirms that the oppressive treatment of persons with an anti-government political opinion is nationwide. The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant throughout China and therefore finds that there is no viable IFA.
CONCLUSION
[18] Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution by Chinese authorities if the claimant returns to China. The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his claim.
(signed) Suraj Balakrishnan
May 4, 2022
[1] Exhibit 2.
[2] Exhibit 6.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Exhibit 3, NDP 5 November 2021, Item 9.6, CHN200762.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 7 October 2021.
[10] Exhibit 3, NDP 5 November 2021, Item 1.11, Country Police and Information Note. China: Opposition to the state. Version 3.0 United Kingdom. Home Office. November 2018.
[11] Exhibit 3, NDP 5 November 2021, Item 9.4, CHN105284.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 15 October 2015.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.