2024 RLLR 26

Citation: 2024 RLLR 26
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 25, 2024
Panel: Fernando Monge-Loria
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ruijia Guo
Country: China
RPD Number: TC3-36607
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

MEMBER: Reasons for decision.

INTRODUCTION

[1]                   These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, who alleges to be a citizen of China and is seeking protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, herein IRPA.

[2]                   I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to China on account of her membership in a particular social group, namely as a family member of someone who has been imputed to hold a political opinion adverse to the state. My reasons are as follows.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]                   Now the allegations in this claim are set out, in full, in the claimants Basis of Claim form at Exhibit 2, which has been amended at Exhibit 4. In summary, the claimant alleges that her family home was expropriated in 2010. She alleges that her and her husband never received the promised compensation from the authorities. She alleges that her husband has sought to pursue compensation for this expropriation, and that following his return to China in 2019, to follow up on his efforts to obtain compensation, he began to face harassment from the local authorities, culminating in him being confined to de-facto house arrest in 2022. She alleges that she had lost all contact with him and since April 2022, and that the local authorities used detention and harassment from the police in order to target her husband. She alleges that she fears she will be similarly targeted should she return to China.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]                   I find the identity of the claimant as a national of China and her personal identity established on a balance of probabilities through her passport, which has been provided when this claim was initiated. That is located at Exhibit 1.

Nexus

[5]                   I have examined the claimants claim under section 96 of IRPA, and I conclude that the risk described by the claimant, has a nexus to the Convention ground of particular social group. The claimant fears harm because her husband has expressed opposition to the actions of the local government in expropriating the family home of the claimants, as I will describe in greater detail in this decision, the objective evidence indicates that people who engage in such actions in China are imputed or targeted on the ground — on the basis of an imputed opposition to the state or a political opinion. The claimant, as a member of the family, of someone who has been targeted in such a manner, therefore falls under the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group.

Credibility

[6]                   I find the claimant to be credible, and I therefore accept what she has alleged in support of her claim. I find that the claimant is a straightforward witness, I find there were no relevant inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before me. I note that the claimant benefits from the presumption of truthfulness of her sworn evidence, including her testimony and her Basis of Claim form. I have found no reason in this case to rebut the presumption of truthfulness, and I therefore accept as credible the claimant’s testimony and the claimant’s allegations in her Basis of Claim form.

[7]                   Now, I do note that the claimant did delay in claiming in Canada after her arrival. The claimant arrived in 2018, but her claim was not initiated until May 2022. Nonetheless, I note that in the circumstances, there is no reason to draw adverse inference from the claimant’s delay in claiming. The claimant testified to having maintained valid status in Canada through the renewal of her visitor records up until the point that she made her claim for protection. Accordingly, she was not exposed to a risk of removal. Additionally, the claimant has given a reasonable explanation for what prompted her decision to claim, namely the loss of contact with her husband following a progressive escalation of his targeting by the authorities. Consequently, I do not draw an adverse inference with respect to credibility or subjective fear from the claimant’s delay in claiming.

[8]                   I also note that there is credible corroborative evidence to support central aspects of the claimant’s allegations. The claimant has provided an online printout from a local news source in her hometown of Yancheng, which identifies her husband as being among those affected in a case of expropriation without compensation to a number of households in the area. The claimant has also demonstrated — or, has also corroborated her loss of contact with her husband. She has shown records going back to April 2022 of her unanswered attempts to reach her husbands. I find this evidence corroborative of core elements of the claimant’s allegations, namely that her — that she was affected by this expropriation and also that she has lost contact with her husband as of April 2022, and I therefore give these documents significant weight towards aiding the claimant’s — the credibility of the claimant’s allegations.

[9]                   So, in conclusion, I find that the claimant to be a credible witness. I therefore find her allegations established on a balance of probabilities. In particular, I find that she established, first, that her and her husband were affected by an expropriation of their property. Second, that they did not receive the promised compensation for the expropriation of this property. Third, that her husband was involved in protest and petition in order to receive the promised compensation. Fourth, that as a response to that protest and petition, her husband began facing an escalating series of harassment and persecutory targeting by the local authorities, including the PSB and the police. Fifth, that she has lost contact with her husband, as of April 2022, when her husband was being confined to a de­-facto house arrest by the authorities.

[10]                   So, well-founded fear. Now, given that I found the claimant to be credible, and given that I have not drawn an adverse inference from the claimant’s delay in claiming, I find the subjective fear of the claimant has been established in this case. I also find that there is an objective basis for the claimant’s fears, and consequently I find that she has established a well-founded fear.

[11]                   Now, the objective evidence indicates that those involved in protests against the expropriation of land and their family members may face a serious possibility of persecution in China.

[12]                   I look at Exhibit — look at Item 1.10 of the National Documentation Package, the report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia. This report notes that the expropriation of land is a particular flashpoint for protest and petition in China. DFAT concludes — or DFAT notes that those involved in such actions face a variety of retaliatory action from the authorities, and concludes that those who organize or participate in protests over land, local corruption, or any other matter deemed critical of the state, are subject to a high risk of official discrimination, meaning that they observe that there is a widespread and significant pattern of people involved in such activities facing official retaliation.

[13]                   Similarly, the UK Home Office report notes that close family members of those who are deemed — those deemed to be critical of the state face a risk of persecution and serious harm. Family members of such individuals can be subject to surveillance, loss of employment, harassment, detention, restrictions — and restrictions on freedom of movement by the state.

[14]                   Now, Item 9 — pardon me, this is Item 9 — missing that citation — 9.7, yes. 9.7 also speaks about the situation of those who object to the expropriation of their land by the Chinese authorities. The country conditions indicate that such protests are a major cause of social unrest, that those who — excuse me, oppose expropriation can face verbal threats, intimidation, loss of basic services, dismissal from their jobs, as well as the use of force and violence by local authorities. Similarly, they can face extralegal detention and administrative detention in unofficial sites. Similarly, the report also notes that family members of those involved in such petitions and protests can face possible violence and retaliation from the authorities, including affecting their employment and affecting their social rights.

[15]                   So, in this particular case, I find that claimant has established that her husband has been harassed, monitored, arrested, detained and held incommunicado due to his efforts to seek compensation for the expropriation of the claimant’s home in the past. The objective evidence indicates that both those engaged in such actions, which are perceived as expressing opposition to the state, as well as their family members, may face a serious possibility of treatment, which I deem persecutory.

[16]                   Consequently, I find that the claimant has established both the objective and subjective components of their claim, and I therefore find that she has established a serious possibility of persecutory treatment in China at the hands of state agents, owing to her membership in a particular social group, namely the family member of an imputed political dissident.

State Protection

[17]                   I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection, given that it is a security organ of the Chinese state, namely, the police, which has been used by the agents of persecution, namely the local authorities to target the claimant’s husbands. I find that the claimant — that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to avail herself of state protection from those — that same security organ. Consequently, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18]                   I find that the claimant does not have a safe internal flight alternative. I note that while the particular officials with whom the claimant has — the claimant’s husband has clashed, are local authorities that may have a relatively limited geographic reach, insofar as his authorities have been able to influence the PSB to act on their behalf. I find that the risk of harassment and monitoring and the risk of extralegal detention and other persecutory treatment extends throughout the entirety of China, as the PSB is, of course, an organization with national jurisdiction and national reach. Consequently, I find that there is no safe and therefore no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[19]                   In light of the reasons that I have given, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, as she faces a serious possibility of persecution in China owing to her membership in a particular social group as the family member of an imputed political dissident. Consequently, I accept this claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———