2023 RLLR 162

Citation: 2023 RLLR 162
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 7, 2023
Panel: Allan Casimiro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stephanie K Fung
Country: China
RPD Number: TC3-13484
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00894
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, claimant, a citizen of China that was claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA. 

[2] The claimant’s allegations are contained in his Basis of Claim form, BOC, Exhibit 2, amendments under Exhibit 5, and addendum under Exhibit 6, and in his testimony. In summary, the claimant is making a claim for refugee protection on account of his fear of persecution by Chinese authorities. The claimant was married to initial WL. However, their normal life was disrupted when a man named initial WH, a Communist Party member and an officer in the armed police system became interested in his wife. 

[3] The claimant found out that WH had sexually abused his wife. He also continued to harass his wife, and often came to their home to make trouble. The claimant’s wife eventually left home and joined WH. She had advised the claimant that she was forced to live with him. 

[4] WH and some other men came to the claimant’s home and forced him to sign a divorce agreement. He did not do so at that time. However, WH showed up at the claimant’s place of employment, accusing him of domestic violence against his wife. He advised the claimant that if he does not sign the agreement that he would be arrested in the end. The claimant involuntarily signed the divorce agreement. 

[5] The harassment interest continued, so the claimant made the decision to leave his job and to relocate his daughter. He came to Canada, where he made a claim for refugee protection. After filing his refugee claim, the claimant was introduced by a friend to a Christian church. The claimant joined the church and was baptized. He wishes to continue practicing his faith without fear, and the claimant continues to ask for Canada’s protection. 

[6] For the purposes of this analysis, the Panel will focus on the claimant’s fears based on his Christian faith. The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA, as he presents a serious possibility of persecution in China on the basis of his religion. 

[7] The Panel finds that the claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of China have been established on a balance of probabilities through a copy of his Chinese passport under Exhibit 1, the original of which had been seized by Immigration as per the notice of seizure. Moreover, Exhibit 7 contains a copy of his resident identification card and household register. 

[8] The Panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness. He testified spontaneously and provided additional details and clarification when asked by the Panel. The claimant testified about the problems he encountered in China with WH. He testified how these problems had an impact on this family and this — and subsequently — sorry, had an impact on this family, and subsequently with his relationship with his wife at the time. 

[9] The claimant provided heartfelt testimony about his daughter, who is in China, who asked him about when he would be able to accompany her again. Similarly, the claimant testified about his introduction to Christianity in Canada by a friend. He explained why he decided to give Christianity a try after being hesitant at first. His parents in China were supportive of his decision to become a Christian. 

[10] The claimant also tried to spread the gospel to his aunt, here in Canada, and also to his co-workers. The claimant talked about original sin and its significance. He also explained the significance of baptism and explained he attended four (4) classes prior to his baptism. The claimant also explained the extent of his Christian practice here in Canada, including doing volunteer work and attending various events, such as a Christian parade and celebrating various religious holidays, including Thanksgiving and Christmas, which is upcoming. 

[11] He also mentioned the significance of Easter and the resurrection. He explained that his church is a Pentecostal church and explained what that signifies. Moreover, he also talked about how the government-sanctioned churches in China are different than the church he currently belongs to here in Canada. 

[12] The claimant submitted documents in support of his claim under Exhibit 7, which includes a certificate of baptism, a church letter, various photos, and a letter — sorry, various photos, and also a letter — sorry, which — various photos and letters, including one (1) from his father in China. 

[13] The Panel finds that he had established on a balance of probabilities that he is a genuine practicing Christian, and given the claimant’s credible testimony regarding problems he encountered with a Chinese Communist Party Member and his Christian faith, the Panel finds that he has established on a balance of probabilities that he fears returning to China and fears persecution there. 

[14] The Panel finds that the objective evidence in Exhibit 3 supports his subjective fears. Exhibit 3, 2.7, states that China’s authoritarian regime has become increasingly repressive in recent years. The ruling Chinese Communist Party continues to tighten controls over all aspects of life and governance, including religious practice. 

[15] The CCP regime operates a multifaceted apparatus to control all aspects of religious activity, including vetting religious leaders for political reliability, placing limits on the number of religious authorities, requiring ideological conformity within religious doctrine, and even installing security cameras inside religious establishments. 

[16] All religious groups must go through a rigorous process of certification to be officially recognized, with those that refuse to do so being labelled illegal and persecuted. Certain religions and religious groups, including Tibetan Buddhist, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners, and Christian house churches, are persecuted harshly. 

[17] Also, the government expanded the use of mobile transformation units, which subject members of illegal religious groups to severe psychological and physical torture intended to force them to transform by renouncing their beliefs. Thousands of members of such illegal groups are sentenced to prison terms and illegal forms of detention, in which ill treatment and torture are routine. 

[18] Exhibit 3, 12.2, also states that the persecution of Protestant house churches also intensified in 2022. The government carried out a nationwide crackdown on house churches by harassing, detaining, physically abusing, and sentencing Protestants who refused to join the state-controlled churches. 

[19] Exhibit 3, 12.6, indicates that it is possible that some unregistered Protestant groups might come to the attention of the authorities and face persecution. It states that house churches are deemed unlawful, and underground churches and Catholic communities aligning themselves with the pope are not tolerated and are persecuted. 

[20] Also, according to a report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedoms — Freedom, Protestants and those who do not join state-sanctioned religious groups continue to face severe restrictions, including efforts to undermine their leaders’ arrest and detention, and destruction of property. 

[21] Also at 12.6, Exhibit 3, state that some worshippers were detained and also that administrative detention, including confinement and abuse at camps, has been used by local authorities to punish members of unregistered religious groups. 

[22] Exhibit 3, 12.4, also indicates that the state imposed a new regulations which had far-reaching state control over religious practice and powers to authorities at all levels to monitor and punish religious practices. 

[23] 12.28, Exhibit 3, reports that the Chinese authority has repeatedly stated that one (1) of the aims of the new regulations is to eliminate independent house churches. Chinese authorities have increasingly cracked down on such unregistered groups. 

[24] Based on the documentary evidence noted, the Panel finds that the claimant’s fears of returning to China on the basis of religion has an objective basis. 

[25] The Panel finds that the claimant, therefore, established a well-founded fear of persecution. 

[26] In terms of state protection, and internal flight alternative, in this case, the state is an agent of persecution. The state is actively persecuting Christians who practice in house churches or churches that are not sanctioned by their government. The Panel finds that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted. There is no state protection available to the claimant. 

[27] Likewise, given that the state is in control of its entire territory, there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant in China. 

[28] For the noted reasons, the Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and his claim is therefore accepted. 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———