VC0-02933

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-02933 VC0-02934 VC0-02935 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 24, 2021 Date de la décision Panel E. Bobkin Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Jasbir Sandhu Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss the appeal brought by the Ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (the Minister or the Appellant). I confirm the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that XXXX XXXX (Principal Respondent) and her children, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX (the Minor Respondents), citizens of China, are Convention refugees based upon their religion. [2] The Respondents have been living in Canada since XXXX 2015 because the Minor Respondents have been in school here. They allege that, in XXXX of 2015, while the Principal Respondent was in China, Jehovah's Witnesses came to the Respondents' home and preached to the Principal Respondent's common-law spouse who began attending services with the Minor Respondents. The Principal Respondent alleges that, when she returned to Canada, she too began to attend in XXXX 2015, that she has practiced the religion since, and that she was baptized in 2017. The Respondents allege that, in 2018, the Principal Respondent returned to China in preparation for leaving Canada permanently and realized that she could not practice her faith openly in China and came back to Canada and claimed protection. [3] The Minister intervened at the RPD hearing because the Principal Respondent's Basis of Claim form (BOC) was substantially similar to that of another refugee claimant. The RPD determined that this issue was not determinative of the Respondents' credibility and concluded that the Respondents credibly established they are Jehovah's Witnesses, on a balance of probabilities. The RPD went on to conclude that, on the basis of their religion, the Respondents would face a serious possibility of persecution if they returned to China. [4] The Minister appeals this decision and argues that the RPD erred. They argue that it was incorrect to place no weight on the similar BOCs and that this issue should have led to a conclusion that the Respondents lack credibility. Alternatively, the Minister argues that the country conditions show that, if the Respondents are Jehovah's Witnesses, they would not face a serious possibility of persecution in China. The Minister submitted a newer National Documentation Package (NDP) as new evidence but did not request an oral hearing. The Respondents argue that the RPD was correct. They have submitted evidence in support of their position. [5] I find that the RPD's decision is correct. While the Minister has correctly raised the issue of the similar BOCs before the RPD, I agree with the RPD that this is not determinative of credibility, and I find that the RPD correctly found the Respondents' religion credible, on a balance of probabilities. I also agree with the RPD that the Respondents' religion places them at risk of persecution in China. DECISION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Respondents are Convention refugees. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Respondents is rejected [7] According to the law,1 I can only accept evidence that: (i) arose after the RPD's decision; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) that the Appellants could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [8] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.2 In the case of an appeal brought by the Minister, the above rules do not apply if the proposed new evidence is "evidence that is presented in response to evidence presented by the Minister."3 In this case, the new evidence submitted by the Minister is the NDP for China, dated March 31, 2020. [9] The Respondent's record contains thirty-four pages of articles and letters pertaining to the Jehovah's Witness faith, their treatment in China, and pictures of the Respondents. Some of these pre-date the RPD hearing; some are dated after the RPD's decision but may relate to events from before the RPD hearing, and others are not clearly dated. The Respondents have not clearly explained how this evidence responds to the new NDP. It is the Respondents' obligation to provide this explanation, and as they have not, I find the evidence is inadmissible. [10] In any event, this is immaterial, as I am confirming the RPD's decision, and the proposed new evidence would not alter my decision to do so. THE ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION (RAD) [11] My role is to look at all of the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.4 There is an exception to this, where the RAD defers to the RPD if the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral evidence. I do not find this case falls into the exception. Therefore, I will be looking at whether the RPD's decision was correct. ANALYSIS [12] The central questions on this appeal are whether the Respondents have established that they are Jehovah's Witnesses, on a balance of probabilities and, if so, whether this exposes them to a serious possibility of persecution in China. The RPD answered both of these questions in the affirmative, and I find this to be correct. [13] When the Minister initially intervened, there was also the question of whether the Principal Respondent was excluded from protection under Article 1F(b) of the United Nation's Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees for abducting the Minor Respondents. The Minister did not pursue this argument at the RPD hearing. However, the RPD considered the issue and determined that the Principal Respondent is not excluded. This finding is not challenged on appeal. I have reviewed the record, and I agree with the RPD's finding on exclusion. This issue will not be addressed on appeal. [14] In addition to the question of exclusion, the Minister also intervened on the grounds of credibility and program integrity issues. Specifically, the Minister identified a second refugee claimant whose Basis of Claim form (BOC) and support letter were substantially similar to that of the Principal Respondent. The RPD concluded that this concern was not determinative of the Respondents' credibility and found that the Respondents are Jehovah's Witnesses, on a balance of probabilities, and this exposed them to risk. For the following reasons, I agree with these findings. The RPD correctly considered the duplicate BOC and evidence [15] The RPD determined that the fact that the Principal Respondent's BOC was substantially similar to a second BOC was not determinative of the Respondents' credibility. The Minister alleges that this was in error because the RPD underplayed the significance of the BOC, improperly assessed the testimony and improperly considered the significance of the BOC declaration. I find the RPD correctly determined this issue. [16] The issue of substantially similar BOCs is serious and can lead to a conclusion that the entire claim is fraudulent. It is common to see the Minister intervene in such cases. However, this case is not typical of duplicate BOCs because of the context of the creation of the BOC and the content of the BOC. The RPD considered these factors, and I find they are important to outline here. [17] The Respondents initially drafted their BOCs with the assistance of an individual who is referred to as "international lawyer friend," who also signed the interpreter's declaration and who the Respondents identified as their unpaid representative.5 This same person was also identified as the representative and interpreter on the similar BOC.6 [18] The representative initially appeared at the RPD hearing to act as unpaid counsel. However, the Minister's representative indicated that they may have considered enforcement action against the representative because of concerns that this person was working without authorization, and therefore the Respondents decided to proceed without counsel. The representative was not called as a witness. In my view, this context is important to the assessment of the two BOCs. [19] The factual context is also important. The BOC drafted is largely generic and the identical wording includes generic statements such as: (a) "I did not ask any other organization because the Chinese Government controls everything. No hope" in response to the question about seeking state protection.7 (b) General Bible quotations and statements about problems Jehovah's Witnesses face in China including, for example: "Since our religious activities are banned and restricted in China JW's are not allowed to publicly preach, hold meetings including assemblies or the Memorial of Christ's death."8 (c) Allegations of other Jehovah's Witnesses being arrested such as: "one brother and sister in Beijing congregation were taken to the police station while talking to someone in McDonald's"9 [20] In my view, the use of the identical wording of these types of statements does not impact the Respondents' credibility because they do not allege anything specific happening to the Respondents. It is possible for the drafters of both BOCs to hold these beliefs, and, given that the BOCs were drafted by the same people, it is not surprising that the same language was used. [21] However, there are other parts of the BOCs which are identical, and which do allege issues occurring for the Principal Respondent, including statements such as "there were meetings at our home with small group of brothers and sisters under terrified condition. . ."10 In response to this, the Principal Respondent said this was an error, and this was not intended to be drafted as including her but, rather, was meant to be about other Jehovah's Witnesses in China.11 [22] Similarly, the BOC states: "2016 while holding this meeting in a meeting room of a hotel, the manager demanded to come in a threatened us with calling the police and getting arrested."12 In response to this, the Principal Respondent stated that she had participated in a Jehovah's Witness meeting in China in 2016 and had been told about this type of thing but that she had not been there.13 Beyond this, the Principal Respondent generally said that the agent drafted the BOC and told her generally what was in it and that it was generally intended to convey what was happening to other Jehovah's Witnesses in China.14 [23] Additionally, there are other parts of the BOC which are identical and which it is unclear whether they allege to include the Principal Respondent. For example: ". . .beginning of 2018, while attending a small meeting a brother told everyone 'a guard is coming'."15 In my view, these are more ambiguous, and it is not clear that the Principal Respondent intended to include herself in these allegations, particularly because this sentence follows the Principal Respondent discussing the situation for Jehovah's Witnesses in China generally and their need to practice in secret. [24] Finally, there are important parts of the BOCs which are not the same. Specifically, the two accounts of how the writers came to be involved in Jehovah's Witnesses is different. The Principal Respondent describes how her husband and children first encountered Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door in Vancouver and how they, and then she, joined and began participating and were baptized.16 The other BOC describes the writer as coming from a Jehovah's Witness congregation in Beijing and being baptised a year after the Principal Respondent.17 This is significant, particularly because the Respondents' claim is a sur place claim. [25] It is against this procedural and factual context that I assess the import of the duplicate BOCs. In a decision designated to be a persuasive decision by the RAD, a framework was set out for assessing duplicate BOCs. This framework is as follows: 1. Sworn evidence is presumed to be true unless there is reason to doubt its truthfulness; 2. The presumption may be displaced by a strikingly similar BoC narrative(s) from an unrelated claim or claims; 3. How similar the narratives have to be to displace the presumption is a question of fact, but if a member is satisfied that they are similar enough to displace the presumption, the claimant needs to be put on notice; 4. The claimant now has to establish on a balance of probabilities that his or her BoC narrative has not been fabricated; 5. The claimant is provided an opportunity to provide an explanation. This can include oral evidence from the claimant and/or witnesses, relying on aspects of the merits of the claim as well as documentary evidence, or any other evidence the claimant elects to bring forward; 6. The member considers the explanation; 7. The member accepts the explanation and continues with the claim or provides sufficient reasons that clearly articulate why the claimant's explanations did not, on a balance of probabilities, demonstrate that the BoC narrative was a true representation of their story; 8. If the latter, the member may have sufficient basis to reject the claim without having to make any additional credibility findings because the finding in relation to ownership of the story, given the centrality of the BoC narrative in a refugee claim, automatically undermines each duplicative or similar element in the narrative.18 [26] The RPD did not specifically consider this framework but did focus on the explanations for the similarities. I find following this approach leads to the same conclusion reached by the RPD. In my independent assessment of the evidence, the BOC narratives are largely generic in nature, and the overlapping factual allegations are not so "strikingly similar" such as to entirely displace the presumption of truthfulness, as described above. I find this central. The Minister argues that the RPD erred by finding the Principal Respondent was "distressed and shocked", but I do not find this particularly relevant, as demeanour is generally not a strong indicia of credibility. I do not find it necessary to consider whether the Principal Respondent was under stress due to no longer having counsel, as this too relates to demeanour, and I am not relying on the Principal Respondent's demeanour. [27] The Minister also argues that it was an error for the RPD to conclude that the BOC issues were the fault of the agent because there is no credible foundation for this finding.19 I disagree. First, there is the testimony from the Principal Respondent. Second, there is the fact that the same representative was used in both BOCs and that this person acted as both representative and interpreter, which gives her a large degree of control. The Minister argues that the RPD ignored that the interpreter's declaration was signed by the representative, who declared she had interpreted it accurately to the Principal Respondent.20 However, the representative was never called as a witness to confirm or deny this, and the Principal Respondent testified that the form was generally interpreted to her. In my view, the interpretation declaration is not conclusive and, as stated above, shows that this representative had a large influence on the process. [28] Third, there is the nature of the similarities which are in large part generic, as described above. For all of these reasons, I find the RPD correctly concluded that the Principal Respondent's explanation for the duplicate BOCs is reasonable. I find that any statements alleging problems for the Principal Respondent as a Jehovah's Witness in China in the past are not credible (nor is the Principal Respondent alleging that they are). Ultimately, while the RPD did not strictly follow the approach set out in the persuasive decision, I find following this approach leads to the same conclusion that the RPD reached, and I find the RPD's conclusion is correct. [29] The Minister makes much about whether the duplicate allegations are deliberate misstatements or errors on the part of the Respondents.21 In my view, this is not determinative. I find that it is possible to evaluate the credibility of the remainder of the evidence and come to a conclusion on the credibility of the Respondents' faith, regardless of the credibility of the duplicate allegations, as I will discuss below. The RPD correctly concluded that the Respondents credibly established that they are Jehovah's Witnesses, on a balance of probabilities [30] The RPD concluded that the Respondents had credibly established that they are Jehovah's Witnesses, on a balance of probabilities, because the Principal Respondent provided credible testimony about what her faith means to her and provided corroborative documentation which credibly supported this allegation.22 The Minister argues that the seriousness of the misrepresentations made in the BOC warrant an overall finding of a lack of credibility.23 As explained above, I do not agree. Reviewing the record, I agree with the RPD that the Respondents credibly established their religious faith, on a balance of probabilities. [31] Notably, as described above, there is no duplication in the similar BOCs about the allegations of how the Respondents became involved with the Jehovah's Witnesses. I find this lends credibility to the allegation. Moreover, I agree with the RPD that the testimony about the importance of the faith to the Principal Respondent was credible. For example, she testified about how learning about resurrection was important to her, stating: ...I lost my mother at such a young age. Ever since I began to learn the Truth and I began to learn the possibility of resurrection, and I feel that one day I will be able to meet my mother in paradise. That has a significant impact on me because I longed for love when I was young but I never got it. Did not got a chance to get it. Therefore, my kids have reached the age of 5, I realized the truth and I treasure dearly. No matter what, you can also follow God... Jehovah and we can always follow him and also Jesus Christ the son of Jehovah.24 [32] Additionally, the Principal Respondent had sufficient knowledge about her religion, which was often demonstrated spontaneously such as her declaration that she could not raise her hand in her affirmation to state the truth because Jehovah's Witnesses do not make any hand gestures,25 and her statement that she was upset to learn that she could not celebrate Easter in China because Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate holidays such as birthdays and Christmas, but they do celebrate Good Friday.26 [33] I also find that the Principal Respondent's testimony about her trips back to China further lend credibility to her testimony. The Principal Respondent explained that she travelled back and forth between China and Canada for work reasons and that she had one experience with Jehovah's Witnesses in China in 2016 where she participated in a small meeting where they had to sing quietly, and they had to change into their traditional clothes at the meeting which was not held at a traditional place of worship.27 She explained that her plan was to return to China in 2018, but when she returned in advance of her planned permanent return, she was no longer able to contact the Chinese Witnesses from 2016 and learned from the community that this would be very unsafe, and there were more risks. She explained that, at this time, she returned to Canada, and this is when the refugee claim was initiated.28 [34] Finally, I agree with the RPD that the corroborative documents support the credibility of the Respondents' allegations. The Respondents provided the following: (a) letters from fellow congregants confirming that they had been members for almost three years and were active participants in a variety of ways;29 (b) a durable power of attorney for health care signed by the Principal Respondent stating that she will not take a blood transfusion, which is a common practice among Witnesses;30 (c) a letter from the Respondents' congregation secretary to confirm that the Principal Respondent is a member of the congregation and was baptized;31 and (d) photographs of the Respondents, including the Principal Respondent's baptism, (which pre-dates the RPD claim by one year), pictures of the Respondents studying the Bible and attending at Kingdom Hall, and pictures of the Respondents preaching, including handing out Jehovah's Witnesses materials.32 [35] I agree with the RPD that this evidence is all persuasive. It shows that the Respondents have been involved with the Jehovah's Witnesses for years before they made a refugee claim. It shows a depth and breadth of involvement with the community. I am aware that mere attendance at a religious organization and baptism does not necessarily amount to a genuine faith. However, in this case, the timing, the duration and the nature of the involvement indicate a genuine faith. When this corroborative documentation is put with the testimony described above, I find the RPD correctly determined that the Respondents are genuine Jehovah's Witnesses, on a balance of probabilities. The RPD correctly determined that the Respondents' religion exposes them to a serious possibility of persecution, and they are Convention refugees [36] The RPD considered the claim as a sur place claim and found the central question to be: "whether the claimants can take their religious practices, developed in Canada back to China, and practice their faith openly and in accordance with their beliefs without a risk of persecution."33 The RPD concluded that, on the basis of the evidence, the Respondents could not, particularly because of the emphasis on preaching in the Respondents' faith and the objective evidence showing that non-registered religious groups (of which the Witnesses are one) face repression, and if caught, arrest and abuse and detention.34 [37] The Minister argues that the RPD erred and that its interpretation of the objective evidence was not balanced and that newer evidence shows the vast majority of Christians practice their religion without persecution.35 I find that the RPD's interpretation of the country documentation is correct and is supported by the new NDP cited by the Minister. [38] I find that the Minister's interpretation of the country documents speaks generally to Christians and not to Jehovah's Witnesses specifically. This may be in part because, as the Minister argues, there is limited information on Jehovah's Witnesses in the NDP.36 However, there is some information on Jehovah's Witnesses, and I find that this should be given more weight than information on the treatment of Christians generally. I find that this evidence indicates a serious possibility of persecution for Jehovah's Witnesses. [39] As quoted by the Minister, it is illegal to be a Jehovah's Witness in China, and according to the Australian DFAT, as quoted by the Minister: Government sensitivity towards foreign influence and CCP mistrust of organizations it does not control would likely make it difficult for Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons to practice their faith in China. In particular, the legal prohibition on proselytization under the 2018 RRA. . . directly conflicts with the religious requirement of both Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons to proselytize in the broader community. Jehovah's Witnesses claim they have faced increased nationwide religious persecution since May 2018, and report maltreatment has occurred in, but is not limited to, Zhejiang, Guangzhou, Qingdao, Xinjiang, Nanjing, Tibet, Chongqing, Zhuhai, Shangxi and Dali. Jehovah's Witnesses also claim community members have experienced home raids, physical abuse, separation from families (including visa cancellation and deportation for couples with foreign spouses), interrogation, detention and placement in re-education centres, and that authorities seized phones and laptops in 2018. Jehovah's Witnesses claim it is common for the foreign spouses of Chinese citizens who are Jehovah's Witnesses to be separated from their families and deported, with no right to return for five years. The present status of Jehovah's Witnesses in China is unclear and DFAT is not able to verify the extent to which Jehovah's Witnesses practise their faith in China. China is not on the Jehovah's Witness website's world listing. However, DFAT assesses restrictions on the free practice of religion continue to tighten in mainland China and would likely affect Jehovah's Witnesses (and potentially the faith's willingness to list its operation in China on its official website), as they would followers of any other unsanctioned underground religion. While the group is not currently considered an 'active' cult in China, DFAT assesses followers may face a degree of harassment and be subject to suppression by Chinese authorities and police. DFAT is unable to verify the extent or severity of such harassment or suppression. [emphasis added]37 [40] In my view, this is very strong evidence that the Respondents would face persecution if they practiced their religion in China. The Minister also argues that the evidence about proselytization is mixed and proselytization is permitted within the limits of the law.38 However, in the very documents cited by the Minister, the limits of the law include that proselytization must occur "within the religious venue[s] registered with the government."39 As discussed above, the Jehovah's Witnesses are an illegal religion in China; therefore, there can be no registered venue where Witnesses could legally proselytize. It is not reasonable to ask the Respondents to practice some other denomination of Christianity, which is what the Minister appears to be arguing. [41] The Minister argues that the Respondents face a "moderate" risk of persecution but not a serious possibility. I disagree. The Federal Court has said that a serious possibility of persecution indicates a "reasonable chance," which need not reach 50 percent.40 In my view, the risks outlined in this case reach that threshold. Moreover, the Federal Court has also said that the Board must consider the individual's circumstances and the way in which they must practice their religion in order to be safe and that limitations on the manner in which an individual practices their faith can constitute persecution.41 In this case, I find the evidence of the Respondents' personal practice of their religion shows that they would face restrictions that are persecutory. [42] The Minister argues that the Principal Respondent and her common-law spouse have returned to China many times and have not had problems, and this indicates there is not a serious possibility of persecution.42 I disagree. The testimony was that the Principal Respondent preached her faith to her friends and family and, on one occasion, went to a Witnesses meeting. This does not amount to fully practicing the religion including public proselytization which is part of the Principal Respondent's practice. The Principal Respondent testified that she routinely preaches in public, including going door to door and at public places.43 She also testified to a high degree of involvement with her faith: On a Monday, I have a part-time job. And, then Tuesday, I will be preaching on Tuesday in the morning. Sometime extended to the afternoon, something like 3 o'clock p.m. And...from 7 p.m. around we have a meeting. At the meeting we order Jehovah's Witnesses. And then on Wednesday, in the morning, we do some preaching. And on Thursday, I would do some research in the Bible and also continue with some preaching. Usually, whenever we are preaching, we would start at 9...we meet up and start at 9:30 in preparation for the preaching. And...preparation for...pre preparation...preparation for preaching. When elderly would lead the brothers and sisters and to meet together to prepare for the preaching. On Wednesday, we also do some pre-study of the Bible with the kids...for the kids. And on Thursday evening, my husband and I, we together study the Book of Truth. And on Friday, my part-time job would require 2 or 3 hours of work. And on Saturday, in the morning, at 9:30, the kids and I, we would participate in some preaching work. And on Sunday morning, we have a public...I am trying to figure out...I need to describe the description. Yes.44 [43] These are the types of activities the Principal Respondent engages in to observe her religion. This is not analogous to speaking to friends and family in China and once attending a secret meeting. I do not find the evidence of the trips back to China establishes that there is not a serious possibility of persecution. Rather, I find that the evidence of the nature of the Principal Respondent's religious activities makes it more likely that she will come to the attention of authorities, and that to avoid this risk, she will have to curtail her practices such that it amounts to persecution. [44] For all of these reasons, I find the RPD correctly concluded that the Respondents face a serious possibility of persecution in China. The Minister has not challenged the RPD's findings on state protection and IFA, and reviewing the record, I agree that these findings are correct and that the RPD correctly concluded that the Respondents are Convention refugees. CONCLUSION [45] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Respondents are Convention refugees. (signed) Erin Bobkin E. Bobkin March 24, 2021 Date 1 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 2 M.C.I. v. Singh, Parminder (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96; Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FC 385. 3 IRPA s. 110(5). 4 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 27-28 and 619. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 775-776. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 732 and 769. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 740 and 777. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 741 and 778. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 741 and 778. 11 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at p. 69. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 741 and 778. 13 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at pp. 73-74. 14 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at pp. 69-71. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 741 and 778. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 731 and 740. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 768 and 777. 18 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2018/2018canlii101516/2018canlii101516.html?autocompleteStr=TB7-16268&autocompletePos=1 19 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, Minister's Memorandum, at para. 16. 20 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, at p. 9. 21 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, at pp. 8-9. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 9-10. 23 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, at pp. 12. 24 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at p. 36. 25 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at p. 5. 26 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at pp. 53-55. 27 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at pp. 50-51. 28 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at pp. 37-40. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 656-657, 677-678. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 670. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 679. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 671-676. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 11. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 11-16. 35 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, pp. 12-18. 36 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, Minister's Memorandum, at para. 42. 37 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, at p. 16, citing the NDP for China (March 31, 2020), item 1.15, at p. 36. 38 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, at p. 16 39 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal Record, at p. 16, citing the NDP for China (March 31, 2020), item 12.4. 40 Adjei v. M.E.I., 1989 CanLII 5184 (FCA), at para. 8 41 Chen, Xue Liang v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-669-12), Gleason, November 16, 2012, 2012 FC 1324, at para. 5. 42 Exhibit M-2, Minister's Appeal, Record, at p. 18. 43 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at pp. 32-34. 44 Transcript of the RPD Hearing (March 4, 2020), at p. 32. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-02933 VC0-02934 VC0-02935 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français