2024 RLLR 34
Citation: 2024 RLLR 34
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 16, 2024
Panel: Lindsay Trevelyan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stacey Margaret Duong
Country: China
RPD Number: TC1-12828
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claim of XXXX XXXX, who alleges to be a citizen of China and is seeking protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA.
[2] The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim form and narrative and her Basis of Claim amendments at Exhibit 2, 6, 8, and 10. The claimant alleges to be a citizen of China and fears persecution at the hands of the Chinese government because of her religion as a practicing Christian. The claimant’s narrative also sets out a history of domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband, XXXX XXXX (ph), a Canadian who she met online in China and lived with in Canada until he was charged by police. She also alleges fear from a subsequent partner in Canada, XXXX XXXX (ph), who is a Canadian and Chinese citizen.
[3] The claimant came to Canada in 2017, living and marrying Mr. XXXX until she was taken to a shelter by police in XXXX of 2018, and filed a humanitarian and compassionate grounds application in XXXX of 2018. The application was denied in XXXX 2020. She began an application for leave for judicial review, which was denied in XXXX 2020. She filed her refugee claim in 2021 on the basis of her abusive relationship with her spouse, and — XXXX XXXX.
[4] A hearing was originally held on January 12th, 2024, by another Board Member. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the Member was not able to render a decision. A de novo hearing was held on May 28th, 2024, and continued after technical issues and Counsel (inaudible) on July 16th, 2024.
[5] In September 2023 and January 2024, the claimant provided further Basis of Claim amendments in Exhibits 6 and 8 indicating that though she did not practice any religion in China, she believed in God, and that since coming to Canada she had found solace in God, not consistent with the Chinese political dogma.
[6] On May 21st, 2024, she provided a final basis of claim amendment at Exhibit 10, indicating that in XXXX 2024, she had met a man who subsequently — a person who subsequently introduced her to XXXX Church, and she has become a Christian.
[7] I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution from the Chinese State by reason of her Christian religious beliefs if she returns to China. The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.
[8] On a balance of probabilities, the claimant has established her personal identity and that she is a citizen of China based on a copy of her Chinese passport in Exhibit 1.
[9] The Federal Court has held in Maldonado that when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, it creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. She testified in a straightforward manner and answered my questions in detail and without hesitations. There were no contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before me.
[10] I note that there was some confusion in the documents about the claimant’s experience with Christianity in China. However, given the persuasive, emotional, and informed testimony of the claimant with respect to her Christian faith in Canada, I did not ask questions nor for clarification to that end.
[11] At the hearing, the claimant provided credible testimony about her long journey to find safety and stability in Canada. She testified that after experiencing sexual and physical violence, and then being informed that her refugee claim needed to be heard de novo, she felt hopeless and desperate, and that she turned to the church. She recited the Lord’s Prayer, tearfully recounted how her faith had given her hope, and that the community had supported her in her struggle. She testified that she attended Sunday service weekly, daily attended online services at the church, and that she spread the gospel once a week.
[12] I accept her testimony as credible and rely on it and the documents she provided to corroborate this claim, including a support letter from the friend who introduced her to XXXX XXXX Church, a certificate of baptism, a letter from the XXXX XXXX, and pictures of her baptism, all at Exhibit 11.
[13] The claimant also testified that she would not practice in a state sanctioned church, which requires one to worship the Communist Party above God. She testified that she understood that spreading the gospel was a tenant of her faith, and that she felt filled with the Holy Spirit when doing so, such that she became overcome with emotion.
[14] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to her allegations as to her Christianity as developed in Canada, coupled with the documentary evidence set out above, I find that she has established on the balance of probabilities that she is a practitioner of the Christian faith.
[15] I will also note that I have no reason to doubt the violence the claimant alleges she had suffered with respect to her ex-spouse and her previous partner. Though not analyzed further here, I continue to rely on Chairperson’s Guideline 4, “Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board,” in analyzing this claim.
[16] The National Documentation Package for China at Exhibit 3 from May 31st, 2024, provides objective evidence that supports her fear in returning to China. Items 12.2, 12.4, and 12.28 of the NDP report that Christians have faced growing repression in China, both at house and state-sanctioned churches, through the harassment and detention of Christian believers, blocking entry to sites of worship, interrupting gatherings, dismantling crosses, demolishing churches, and disbanding congregations. The underground church participants have increasingly been subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention and recommends that China be designated as a country of particular concern for engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedoms as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act. The state has imposed new regulations related to religious practice, which grant far-reaching state control over every aspect of religious practice, and extended power to authorities at all levels of government to monitor, control, and potentially punish religious practice.
[17] Chinese authorities have repeatedly stated that one (1) of the aims of the new regulations is to eliminate independent house churches. More than 5,000 Christians have been arrested in 2018 because of their faith or religious practice. Chinese authorities have continued to arrest Christians and forced more limitations on their activities, including requiring Christian churches to install surveillance cameras to enable daily police monitoring, and compelling members of house churches and other Christians to sign documents renouncing their Christian faith and church membership. Again, this is at Exhibit 3, Item 12.1, 12.2, and 12.28.
[18] The objective evidence supports the findings that Christians have a well-founded fear of persecution in China.
[19] As the agent of persecution is the government of China, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection of the Chinese government in her particular circumstances. Therefore, I find the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.
[20] Similarly, I find on a balance of probabilities that the objective country documentation evidence establishes that the authorities operate similarly throughout the country, and that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout China because of her religion. Therefore, a viable internal flight alternative is not available to her.
[21] I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution from the Chinese State by reason of her Chinese religious beliefs — or Christian religious beliefs if she returns to China. The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, and I therefore accept her claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———