2022 RLLR 92

Citation: 2022 RLLR 92 
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division 
Date of Decision: May 18, 2022 
Panel: Allan Casimiro 
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jordana Rotman 
Country: China 
RPD Number: TC1-03305 
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A 
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023 
ATIP Pages: N/A 

DECISION 
 
[1]        MEMBER: This is the decision in the Refugee Protection Division in the claim for refugee protection, made by XXXX XXXX, under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA. 
 
[2]        The allegations are noted in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form narrative, Exhibit 2, and in his testimony. 
 
[3]        In short, he was introduced by a friend to the Church of Almighty God in early XXXX 2016. He was suffering from depression and nightmares as a result of the drowning death of one of his friends.  
 
[4]        His friend, JH, talked to him about his religion and how having faith would help him with his problems. This made an impression on the claimant and as a result he started to attend services with other believers. He also assisted in distributing flyers in the park at night to introduce others to the faith. 
 
[5]        In discussion with his family, the claimant fled China with the help of a smuggler so he can practise his religion freely. However, the claimant was forced to pay off a substantial amount of debt to the smuggler and ended up working at XXXX XXXX for close to three (3) years before he was able to pay it off and leave the XXXX. 
 
[6]        In Canada, the claimant practises his faith freely. 
 
[7]        The Panel has considered all of the evidence, and finds that the claimant- 

 (audio 1 ends)

 

 (audio 2 starts)

[8]        His oral and written evidence that there is a serious possibility that he would suffer persecution in China due to his faith and membership in the Church of Almighty God. 
 
[9]        The claimant provided copies of his Chinese passport, Hukou, and resident identification card, under Exhibit 5. On a balance of probabilities, he was able to establish his personal and national identity as a citizen of China. 
 
[10]       The Panel finds that the claimant’s testimony in general is credible, was consistent with all of the documents provided in support of his claim.  
 
[11]       He testified about the religious materials that are important to his faith. He talked about the meaning and importance of prayer. He testified about how he was introduced to the Church of Almighty God and his own involvement in China. He testified about what takes place during services back in China, and he explained how he continues to practise his faith here in Canada.  
 
[12]       He testified about his close to three (3) years stay at a XXXX where he worked to try and pay off the debt, he owed the smuggler. He testified that although he was not kept against his will, he had an obligation to pay off the debt, if not the smugglers would go after his parents in China.  
 
[13]       As a result, he was not able to fully practise his religion until after he paid off the debt and left the XXXX in XXXX of 2020. At which point he was able to find and join a group of Almighty God believers. 
 
[14]       The claimant talked about the three (3) eras. The testimony is consistent with the tenets of the Church of Almighty God which are described in our documentary evidence, Exhibit 3, Item 12.30. 
 
[15]       Their group leader also provided a letter under Exhibit 5. The same Exhibit also contain photos, showing the claimant’s church activities in Canada. The Panel asked him to explain what was taking place in these photos. 
 
[16]       The Panel accepts the evidence provided, and finds on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is a genuine believer of the Church of Almighty God. His evidence was both internally consistent and consistent with the other evidence provided in support of his claim. 
 
[17]       The claimant is not presently being pursued by the authorities; however, counsel’s disclosure under Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8, details persecution members of the Church of Almighty God and other house Christians experience at the hands of Chinese authorities.  
 
[18]       The Panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is a genuine believer, and that he will continue to practise his faith in China, as a result he will be subjected to arrest and persecution at the hands of authorities, if he is to return to China. 
 
[19]       He also testified that this group in China had to suspend all services in October of 2021 due to ongoing crackdown of similar groups in their area.  
 
[20]       Exhibit 3, Item 12.30 states that the Church of Almighty God is banned in China and that church members are persecuted in China. It provides examples of believers who had suffered various forms of torture and indoctrination.  
 
[21]       Illegal religions have been targets of systematic and severe crackdowns, and there have been a vicious crackdown on religion by authorities in recent years, which makes the situation more dangerous.  
 
[22]       Exhibit 3, Item 12.1 also indicates that Church of Almighty God members have been arrested and subjected to physical abuse, including beatings and sleep deprivation. 
 
[23]       [The Panel finds that the claimant established that he has a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Chinese authorities, based on both personal and objective evidence. The Panel finds that the claimant would not be able to practise his religion freely in China as a member of the Church of Almighty God. 
 
[24]       In summary, the Panel finds that on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s fear of persecution is well-founded.  
 
[25]       The Panel finds that given that it is the State who is the agent of persecution that state protection would not be available to him. 
 
[26]       In terms of an internal flight alternative, given that the claimant is a genuine and ongoing believer of the Church of Almighty God, even if he relocates to other parts of the country the risk remains the same as it is the State authorities that he fears, and the State has labelled the Church of Almighty God as an evil cult. 
 
[27]       The Panel is satisfied that there will be a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant throughout the country, thus the possibility or viability of an internal flight alternative fails on the first prong of the test. 
 
[28]       In conclusion, after assessing all of the evidence the Panel finds if the claimant is returned to China, that he would face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of his religion under section 96 of IRPA. 
 
[29]       Therefore, the Panel finds that he is a Convention refugee, and this claim is accepted. 
 
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———