2023 RLLR 155

2023 RLLR 155 Citation: 2023 RLLR 155 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: December 8, 2023 Panel: Arjan Sethi Counsel for the Claimant(s): Makola Mawanda Country: China RPD Number: TC2-32549 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00894 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] Claimant XXXX XXXX is a citizen of China and claims refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act).[1] DETERMINATION [2] I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in China on the Convention ground of political opinion, pursuant to s 96 of the Act. ALLEGATIONS [3] The claimant fears persecution at the hands of the Chinese Public Security Bureau (PSB) based on an imputed political opinion. His narrative indicates his long-term friend, XXXX XXXX, contacted him and that they met at his apartment at the XXXX of 2017. Upon meeting, XXXX XXXX informed the claimant he had escaped from a XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Xinjiang state. The claimant is a XXXX and provided XXXX XXXX with XXXX assistance, and a place to stay for around two weeks. The claimant was directed by the PSB to report on XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2018. His narrative indicates he experienced workplace discrimination because he drew PSB attention to his workplace. The claimant exited China for the last time on XXXX XXXX, 2019. His narrative indicates the PSB visited his home on XXXX XXXX, 2020, and directed his wife to have the claimant return to China and report to them. The claimant fears arrest should he return to China because of his refusal to report on XXXX XXXX to the PSB. Further, he believes there is no safe place for him to safely reside in China. The specifics of claimant’s narrative are outlined in his Basis of Claim.[2] Identity [4] The claimant’s personal and national identity as a national of China has been established, on a balance of probabilities, through the supporting documentation filed, namely a certified copy of his Chinese passport. Nexus [5] I find that there is a nexus between what the claimant fears and the Convention ground of political opinion. The claim will be assessed under s. 96 of the Act. The test under s. 96 is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to China. I find the claimant has met this test. Credibility [6] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity. The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities. I find the claimant provided credible and spontaneous testimony and has been able to clearly explain how the Chinese State persecuted him based on an imputed political opinion. I note that there were no material inconsistencies, omissions or contradictions between the claimant’s testimony and other evidence in the claim that were not reasonably explained. i. The claimant provided XXXX assistance to an escaped detainee [7] The claimant testified that he has a 40-year friendship with XXXX XXXX, a Muslim man who previously lived in the Kashgar city, Xinjiang state. He testified XXXX XXXX called him at the XXXX of 2017, and this was their first communication in more than a year. The claimant testified XXXX XXXX came to his apartment and informed him in-person that he had escaped from a XXXX XXXX XXXX. He testified XXXX XXXX explained to him every person from his village was taken to a XXXX and no one was told what had happened and why there were kept at the XXXX. XXXX XXXX informed the claimant that there was often no food, and he would be starving. I note the claimant described that when he met XXXX XXXX, he was very skinny and looked unhealthy, further, he believes XXXX XXXX was tortured at the XXXX. XXXX XXXX informed the claimant that he stayed at the XXXX for around XXXX months, and when he found an opportunity to escape from XXXX XXXX, he took it. [8] The claimant was asked why XXXX XXXX came to see him. The claimant explained there are two reasons why XXXX XXXX had come to see him: first, they are longstanding friends, and second, the claimant is a XXXX and XXXX XXXX required XXXX assistance. The claimant testified that XXXX XXXX dared not go to a XXXX for XXXX. The claimant described XXXX XXXX to have sustained a back injury and he could hardly move. The claimant testified he went to the XXXX to obtain XXXX and then provided XXXX XXXX with XXXX. The claimant was asked to describe the XXXX XXXX he provided XXXX XXXX. He explained he gave XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the XXXX was provided in his own house. Following the XXXX, the claimant testified to have provided XXXX XXXX with a temporary living accommodation. He explained he has a friend who lived in the same building and whose apartment was vacant for at least a month, so the claimant asked his friend if he could temporarily loan the apartment to him. He testified XXXX XXXX stayed for around two weeks. However, despite having attempted to contact him on the same number, he testified to have had no luck in contacting XXXX XXXX since he left the claimant’s building. I find the claimant provided credible, detailed, and spontaneous testimony on his interaction with XXXX XXXX. Based on the claimant’s testimony, I find on a balance of probabilities XXXX XXXX is Muslim who escaped a XXXX XXXXin Xinjiang State. I find XXXX XXXX is a longstanding friend of the claimant, that the claimant provided him with XXXX assistance at the XXXX of 2017 and then provided him with a temporary living accommodation for around two weeks. ii. The claimant refused to report on XXXX XXXX to the PSB. [9] The claimant testified that his first interaction with the PSB was on XXXX XXXX, 2018. He testified the PSB questioned him on the whereabouts of XXXX XXXX, and he explained to the officer that he only provided XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX and does not know his whereabouts. The claimant testified the PSB came to his work and spoke with his boss and then on XXXX XXXX, 2018, he was called into his boss’s office where his boss informed him to not cause trouble for the XXXX and to report on XXXX XXXX to the PSB. The claimant explained that it was difficult for him because he knew XXXX XXXX escaped from the XXXX XXXXand if he were to provide the PSB with information it may result in XXXX XXXX being arrested and having to return to the XXXX XXXX. [10] The claimant testified he began to experience workplace discrimination after helping XXXX XXXX. The claimant explained his work began to: 1) inform him of alleged XXXX complaints from XXXX the claimant had never XXXX; 2) switch his day shifts to night shifts; and 3) not pay him for days-off from work. The claimant was asked if he was fired from his work. He explained that the XXXX did not allow him to leave but punished him by changing his job tasks and reducing his pay, to which he testified had caused him XXXX and financial hardship. I find the claimant’s testimony on his workplace discrimination credible and detailed. I find on a balance of probabilities the claimant faced workplace discrimination as a reprisal from his superiors for having drawn PSB attention to their workplace. [11] The claimant testified he came to Canada for the first time on XXXX XXXX, 2018, to accompany his daughter who was commencing XXXX XXXX in Canada and returned to China on XXXX XXXX, 2018. He testified to stay in China for around a week and then having to return to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018. He testified that his daughter was in Canada alone, and she experienced XXXX and no one was in Canada who could take care of her, so he returned and stayed until XXXX 2019. He testified the final time he exited China was on XXXX XXXX, 2019. While staying in Canada, he testified to have seen the western news on the XXXX XXXX in Xinjiang State and how the Chinese State is treating Muslims, and then realized he was in much greater trouble than he originally thought. [12] He testified the PSB came to his home on XXXX XXXX, 2022, and spoke with his wife, who was directed to have the claimant return to China and report to the PSB. After the PSB visit, he testified his wife traveled to Canada, but had to return to China on XXXX XXXX, 2020. He testified she was required to quarantine upon arrival, and after the quarantine period, the PSB confiscated her passport. The claimant was asked why they confiscated her passport. He explained the PSB do not want her to leave China because they want the claimant to return to China and report to them. [13] I note the corroborating documents the claimant adduced into evidence: 1) a document from his employer regarding his travel to Canada in XXXX 2018; and 2) a support letter from his wife. As I have no reason to doubt their authenticity, I assign full weight to these documents in support of the claimant testimony. I note his wife’s support letter details her travel history to Canada, the PSB’s visit to her home, and outlines the reason for her return to China. Based on the claimant credible testimony and supporting documentary evidence, I find claimant’s refusal to report on XXXX XXXX to the PSB has made him a person of interest to Chinese authorities. I find the claimant has established a subjective fear of returning to China as he faces persecution by the PSB based on an imputed political opinion. Objective Basis [14] Revised Regulations on Religious Affairs (‘Revised Regulations’) came into effect on February 1st 2018, tightening the State’s control over religious activities, with an aim to eradicate foreign influence on religious activities in China.[3] Islam is one of the five official religious traditions recognized by the Chinese State[4] and it is estimated 50 million Muslims live in China. The Revised Regulations drive the process of Sinicization[5], where recognized religions like Islam are forced to reconfigure their practices to align with traditional Chinese culture and values. By sinicizing Islam, the Chinese State believes it will rid them of foreign influence.[6] In comparison to the other recognized religions like Buddhism or Taoism, Islam is perceived as a foreign religion, and thereby less authentically Chinese, causing it to face greater scrutiny and harsher restrictions by the State. [15] Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and members of other predominately Muslim ethnic groups are experiencing mass detention in political re-education camps in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (‘Region’).[7] It is estimated as high as three million individuals have been detained without charge in political re-education camps since 2017.[8] It is reported that within these camps detainees are required to renounce Islam and are also forced to eat pork or drink alcohol; acts which violate their religious beliefs. Outside the camps, Chinese authorities have demolished 1000s of mosques in the Region as an attempt to weaken Uyghur religion, culture, and ethnic identity.[9] These mass detentions are a clear example of how the Chinese State is attacking religious practice and culture that does not conform with traditional Chinese culture and values. [16] I note the claimant’s friend XXXX XXXX escaped from a XXXX XXXXin Xinjiang state and because of his interaction with the claimant, the claimant came to the attention of the PSB. I find that the PSB’s persistence in having the claimant report to them indicates XXXX XXXX’s whereabouts are still unknown, which may have become a growing concern to Chinese authorities over the years. I find the PSB would perceive the claimant to be a political dissident for not providing information on XXXX XXXX when directed to do so. The objective evidence supports the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution. I find the claimant has made out a well-founded fear of persecution based on an imputed political opinion. State Protection [17] The Chinese State is the agent of persecution because it persecutes the claimant based on an imputed political opinion. As the Chinese State is the agent of persecution, I find the presumption of State protection has been rebutted and find there is clear and convincing evidence that there is no adequate state protection available to the claimant. Internal Flight Alternative [18] I find the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout China because of his imputed political opinion. The state is the agent of persecution, and the treatment of perceived political dissidents would be the same through out the country. I find there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant in China. CONCLUSION [19] I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of political opinion should he return to China and find him to be a Convention Refugee under 96 of the Act. I accept his claim. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ——— [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1) [2] Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim. [3] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2023, tab 12.35: Repressed, Removed, Re-Educated: The stranglehold on religious life in China. CSW. February 2020. [4] Ibid. [5] National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2023, tab 12.29: Country Policy and Information Note. China: Non-Christian religious groups. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. July 2021. [6] Ibid. [7] National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2023, tab 12.35: Repressed, Removed, Re-Educated: The stranglehold on religious life in China. CSW. February 2020. [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid.