TB8-25520

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-25520 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX) Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 14, 2019 Date de la décision Panel T. Andrews Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Elyse Korman Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), claims to be a citizen of China. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant's daughter was suffering from emotional problems and his close friend suggested that he turn himself over to God after medical intervention was unhelpful. The friend introduced him to an unregistered church in China known as the Olive Tree Church. He began to attend underground services at two members' homes. He had a positive experience and his daughter improved. [4] On March 19, 2017 he attended a large service at the Olive Tree Church in Foshan, but this service was raided and he was taken into police custody with about 19 others. He was interrogated about his connection to the church and his information was recorded. He was released after several hours with a warning not to associate with any illegal religious activities. [5] The Appellant continued to attend his small house church group in Guangzhou as they had not had problems. However, on June 26, 2017 he was called in again by Foshan Public Security Bureau (PSB) for questioning after another small church group had been discovered. He was informed that he was being investigated as they had information that he was part of a house church in Guangzhou, which he denied. He was released, but was told that they would continue to investigate him. [6] The Appellant thereafter made arrangements through a smuggler to leave the country. He obtained a US visa and after arriving in the US, he travelled on foot to Canada with the smuggler, bypassing Canadian Customs and Immigration. [7] Since arriving in Canada, the PSB issued a summons for the Appellant after he failed to attend at their office following their call on October 6, 2017. [8] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on August 21, 2018. In a decision dated August 27, 2018, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that core allegations of his claim were not credible. [9] On appeal the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility findings. ROLE OF THE RAD [10] The standard of review is correctness as established in Huruglica1, where the Federal Court gives guidance in regard to the role of the RAD. ANALYSIS [11] The determinative issue on appeal is credibility. The Appellant argues that the RAD erred by making several implausibility findings; that he could not have left China using his own passport; that it was implausible that he did not know the smuggler's actions; that the PSB would issue a summons in his circumstances; and that he would be issued a US visa at all given their security checks. He also argues that the RPD erred by finding he was not credible because he used false documents to secure a US visa, by finding he had a lack of subjective fear and by making negative inferences because he did not attend a state sanctioned church and because of his religious knowledge. Finally, the Appellant argues that it was an error to place no weight on the summons that he provided in support of his claim. Evidence submitted on Appeal [12] The Appellant is not relying on any new evidence referred to in subsection 110(4) of IRPA and he does not request an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) of the Act. Findings related to credibility Summons [13] The RAD finds that the RPD was correct in placing no weight on the summons as the document is fraudulent. [14] The RPD found that the supporting documents that were proffered in support of the claim were not persuasive and did not overcome its credibility concerns. Specifically in relation to the summons, the RPD found it implausible that authorities would issue a summons after the Appellant's departure, knowing that he had already exited China. The RPD also found that receipt of documents including the summons by mail in Canada was inconsistent with a fear of the PSB, given that the National Documentation Package (NDP) notes that Chinese authorities monitor and open international mail to track fugitives. The RPD further found that the Appellant did not reasonably explain why the envelope in which his documents were sent by mail, predated a birth certificate that was amongst the documents that the envelope allegedly contained. This led to a finding that the documents sent in said envelope were not authentic on a balance of probabilities. [15] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by placing no weight on the PSB summons that was issued for him as the finding that it was fraudulent was based on credibility findings which cannot be sustained. [16] The RAD has reviewed the recording of the hearing and notes that when discussing his children and their births, the Appellant indicated that he received the birth certificate issued in January 2018, pertaining to his second daughter who was born on November 22, 2017 because his wife mailed it over. He confirmed that the envelope in evidence was used to mail it and testified that the Hukou, Resident Identity Card (RIC), birth certificate, summons and the notification from the PSB; the Administrative Punishment decision were sent in the same envelope. When asked why the postage date on the envelope predated his daughter's birth and the issuance date of the birth certificate, the Appellant then indicated that his two daughters have birth certificates, the birth certificate for his second daughter was brought over by his wife's older brother and he made a mistake earlier when he said it was sent in the envelope as he thought the member was talking about the RIC and the Hukou.2 [17] The RAD finds that the record reflects that the Appellant was shown the birth certificate in question while discussing that document and immediately after discussing his second daughter's date of birth he was asked how it was received as well as whether it came in the envelope that was in evidence. The RAD finds that his explanation that he misunderstood was not reasonable in light of the fact that he was shown the document and they were discussing that very document when he was asked the question about its receipt. The RAD finds that the fact that the birth certificate postdates the envelope does call into question the authenticity of all documents provided within the same envelope. [18] In addition, the RAD has closely examined the public security summons/zhi'an chuanhuan that was before the RPD. According to the National Documentation Package (NDP) summonses have not varied in format since 2003. Further, the same document indicates that "...such forms are supposed to be used throughout the country and that regional variations are not meant to exist."3 Hence, the summons in evidence should duplicate the sample in terms of its format and structure. [19] However, the RAD finds that summons in evidence differs from the sample4 contained within the NDP. The second and third lines of the summons in evidence do not match the sample as the character before the number 30 falls on the second rather than the third line. Further, midway down the page on the right-hand side where the date is written in English as 2017/10/08 on the summons in evidence, in the sample that information appears entirely in Chinese characters. And, the spacing is not consistent as the bottom three lines of the summons in evidence are single spaced whereas the lines in that same place on the sample are not. [20] In Jiang5, Justice Crampton found that small differences can be telling: In my view, it may very well be reasonably open to the RAD or another decision maker to question the authenticity of a document based on very small or even microscopic differences between the document and an authentic counterpart. It is in the small or microscopic details where a forgery may well be exposed. [21] The RAD finds on a balance of probabilities, that the summons submitted is fraudulent, and the RAD finds that the Appellant's submission of a fraudulent document in support of his case damages his credibility. [22] This summons was expressly proffered to illustrate that the Appellant is wanted by the Chinese authorities for his illegal Olive Tree religious activities. The RAD notes that there is an RIR on this particular Christian church within the NDP. It specifies that in Foshan, Guangdong this church has been subject to raids by special police in September 2014 and again in March 2016. Several members were arrested during those incidents and during the 2014 event, the criminal detention notices issued for those arrested indicated they were charged with 'suspected use of a cult to undermine the law'.6 Thus, this church in particular is known and Chinese authorities have applied the criminal "cult" designation to this group despite it not being on the official list of banned groups. The Appellant's allegations are that he attended the Olive Tree church in March 2016 when the second raid occurred and that he is one of the 20 church members that were detained. [23] Given that the summons is fraudulent, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant never attended that church and he was not being investigated by the PSB or the authorities in China for being part of Olive Church activities as alleged. [24] The RAD notes that the only other link to the Olive Tree religious group is the Administrative Punishment decision, which is a document not mentioned anywhere in the NDP and the Appellant did not provide any information about the use of such documents in China. The RAD notes that as per case law, submitting a false or irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by the Appellant, especially when they are interrelated,7 and on the overall credibility of an Appellant.8 The RAD finds that given the use of a fraudulent summons, that no weight can be put on this Administrative Punishment decision which was allegedly issued in relation to the same event prior to the summons. [25] As the RAD finds that the Appellant is not being investigated and/or is not wanted, the RAD will not address the arguments within the memorandum (items 1-21) that deal with the issue of his ability to exit from China using his own passport, his ability to obtain a US visa, the actions of the PSB or his subjective fear. The implausibility findings and the finding made regarding the Appellant having a lack of subjective fear were made by the RPD based on the Appellant's allegations and contention that he is a person of interest to the PSB, who subsequently became a wanted person after his departure from China. As the RAD has found that the summons that was submitted to establish that he is wanted is fraudulent, the RAD finds he is not wanted or of interest for being a part of the Olive Tree religious group. Therefore, the RAD finds it is unnecessary to address the above mentioned issues that the RPD disbelieved, which were based on the fact that he was a wanted person. Religious knowledge [26] The RAD finds that the RPD did err by impugning the Appellant's credibility based on his religious knowledge or lack thereof. However, this is not determinative of the appeal as it does not change the outcome of the hearing because even if he is a Pentecostal Christian, he can practice his religion in China. [27] The RPD found that the Appellant was not a genuine practicing Pentecostal Christian because he was unable to correctly or persuasively answer questions about the religion; namely the meaning of being "Pentecostal" or the difference between Pentecostalism and Catholicism. [28] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his religious knowledge and by finding that he did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of Pentecostal Christianity to establish that he was a true believer. In refugee claims the bar is low for claimants to demonstrate religious knowledge and the RPD failed to exercise the appropriate amount of caution that was required given the subjective and personal nature of beliefs. [29] At the hearing the Appellant testified that he follows the Pentecostal denomination of Christianity. When asked what that is, he testified it was the "Holy spirit church." When the RPD sought further information about what that meant, the Appellant testified that it is a type of Christianity and Pentecost means protection. He explained that they would study the bible, explain the meanings of the bible and when they do something wrong, they would be corrected. He testified that he chose this denomination because it helped with his daughter's illness and his friend had spread the gospel to him. When asked the difference between Pentecostals and Catholicism, he repeated that Pentecost is protection and indicated he did not know about other denominations. When asked if he knew what the Pentecost is, he testified in response that it is about Jesus Christ and that they must believe in Jesus Christ and then they would go to heaven. [30] The RAD finds in reviewing the testimony that the member asked a limited number of very specific questions solely regarding the Pentecost/Pentecostalism without asking basic questions about how often the Appellant attended church and for how long to establish a baseline or what it would have been reasonable for the Appellant to know. According to his BOC, the Appellant only began attending church in January 2017, not long before coming to Canada. In my view, the questions asked about Pentecostalism were higher level questions that persons involved in religious studies/theology may have reasonably been expected to answer in a more in-depth fashion. However, the RAD finds it unlikely that someone relatively new to the faith could respond meaningfully to the questions posed or would have any basis for comparison to Catholicism. The RAD finds that further questions about his faith were required in order to establish that he was or was not Christian. State sanctioned church [31] The RAD finds that the RPD was incorrect in finding it implausible that the Appellant would attend a house church. [32] The RPD found that it was implausible that the Appellant would not have sought to attend a state sanctioned church rather than a house church given what the objective documents say about the risks of attending a house church in China. [33] The Appellant argues that the RPD was wrong to impugn his credibility based on the fact that he never attended a state-sanctioned church due to his own religious/philosophical objections as state-sanctioned churches put the government ahead of God. [34] The RAD finds that the documentary evidence indicates that upwards of 23 million persons attend unregistered house churches in China for a variety of reasons. The RAD finds that given the prevalence of house churches in China and the fact that many/most adherents are able to practice without difficulty (to be discussed below), that it was wrong to find it implausible that he would attend an underground church. Despite this error, the RAD finds that this is not determinative and there is sufficient remaining evidence on which to dismiss the appeal. Uncontested findings [35] The RPD also made some further findings that were not challenged by the Appellant as follows and the RAD sees no reason to disturb these findings which undermine the Appellant's credibility. Thus, the RAD will not be dealing with them: 1. Discrepancy regarding when he last attended church in China 2. Discrepancy regarding passport location Practice of Christianity in China [36] Since moving to Canada, the Appellant has been attending the Living Stone Assembly. There is no indication what denomination this church is (although presumably it is Pentecostal as the Appellant testified that was his denomination) nor is there any evidence that it is connected to any church in China (there is a church with a similar name in China referenced within the NDP). The Appellant has submitted documents9 from the aforementioned church in Canada to indicate that he has been attending services and has been baptized. As such, the RAD has considered whether there is a serious possibility that he would be persecuted should he choose to practice Christianity at any number of unregistered churches in China. The RAD has looked at the country condition evidence and considered the Appellant's circumstances. He is a Pentecostal Christian and Pentecostal Christians fall under the broader category of Protestant churches. [37] Although designated as a country of particular concern by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedoms, documents specify that out of the country's approximately 1.4 billion persons, the State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) estimates that there are more than 200 million religious followers. Many experts, however, believe that official estimates underestimate the total number of religious adherents. The U.S. government estimates that there are 657 million religious believers in the country, including 250 million Buddhists, 70 million Christians, 25 million Muslims, 301 million observers of folk religions, and 10 million observers of other faiths, including Taoism (July 2010 estimate). According to 2014 data from the Jewish Virtual Library, the country's Jewish population is 2,500.10 [38] While difficult to quantify, the various sources within the NDP specify that the number of Protestant adherents is anywhere between 23 to 100 million persons.11 The estimates are so divergent because of the fact that there are official and unofficial Protestant churches in China. [39] Religious groups are required by law to register with the government and only those affiliated with one of the five state-sanctioned "patriotic religious associations" (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant) are permitted on paper to hold services. For Protestants, they must register under the officially recognized umbrella organization for Protestant churches known as the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and register with the previously mentioned SARA. Registered religious organizations are allowed to possess property, publish approved materials, train staff, and collect donations. According to regulations, religious organizations must submit information about the organization's historical background, doctrines, key publications, minimum funding requirements, and a government sponsor. Due to the difficulty of fulfilling these requirements, many religious organizations either remain unregistered or register as commercial enterprises.12 [40] As such, the number of registered churches is a known figure (between 23 and 29 million persons). However, the number of unregistered or underground house churches is unknown and the NDP specifies that as many, if not more Protestants choose to worship at unregistered rather than official churches.13 [41] Christianity is growing rapidly14 in China persons move freely between State-registered churches and the unregistered churches15. In fact, according to one source, "no great theological differences exist between registered churches and unregistered churches and many Chinese Christians attend both."16 The differences are said to be primarily political. [42] Documents also indicate that official and unofficial Christian groups alike operate within a grey or uncertain area. According to the UK home office: The Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of religion for 'normal religious activities' but does not define 'normal'. The Chinese authorities seek to control all aspects of religious worship. Restrictions on religious freedoms and activities are widespread, but there are also widespread regional variations in severity. [43] There is an indication that in many parts of the country cooperative or at least tolerant relations developed between local officials and churches, both registered and unregistered".17 Hence, many groups meet quietly with tacit approval of local authorities and the treatment received is dependent on a number of factors including the region in which they operate, the size of their church and whether their activities are seen to promote social or economic development interests.18 "[The] tens of thousands of underground congregations (both Catholic and Protestant but mostly Protestant), while technically illegal, are often tolerated by local officials and sometimes even allowed to operate openly as long as they are not explicitly 'political'.19" [44] According to the Australian Refugee Tribunal: [U]nregistered groups should not be equated with groups which have been declared evil cults.' While, strictly speaking, both groups are illegal (as they operate outside the registration process), in practice unregistered religious groups are sometimes treated with a certain level of tolerance, while individuals belonging to 'cults' are ruthlessly pursued.20 [45] The groups recognized that are banned and/or deemed to be "evil cults" by the government are as follows: * Falun Gong * the Guanyin Method religious group (Guanyin Famen or the Way of the Goddess of Mercy), * Zhong Gong (a qigong exercise discipline) * And Christian groups: Shouters, Eastern Lightning, Society of Disciples (Mentu Hui), Full Scope Church (Quan Fanwei Jiaohui), Spirit Sect, New Testament Church, Three Grades of Servants (San Ban Puren), Association of Disciples, Lord God religious group, Established King Church, the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (Unification Church), Family of Love, and South China Church.21 [46] The RAD notes that Pentecostal Christians are not included on the above list of banned groups. The UK Home office states that in general the treatment faced by Christians in China, including those from unregistered churches, is unlikely to amount to persecution and the risk for Christians expressing and living their faith in China is very low. [Despite] a variety of official and social sanctions against it, the majority of Christians are able to worship and practice without facing serious difficulties. Millions of Chinese Christians manifest their beliefs openly, and senior government officials have praised religious communities' positive role in society, and urged approved religious groups to promote 'economic and social development' and 'socialist principles'.22 [47] While many groups meet without interference, documents also discuss that some house churches are raided or evicted from their meeting locations and the fact that there may be a risk of persecution for bishops and pastors (with a higher profile) or persons who worship at unregistered churches and conduct themselves in a way that garners public attention "to them or their political, social or cultural views." Those persons do face a risk of harassment, detention and fines23 and the documents provide various examples of Protestants who have been incarcerated and charged with a number of crimes. [48] In addition, the panel notes that documents discuss a series of incidents that have escalated tensions between the government and Christian churches in recent years that began in March 2013. The authorities in Zhejing Province launched three-year campaign called 'Three Rectifications and One Demolition" which began to dismantle what they term as "illegal structures" and in practice focused mainly on church buildings.24 They began with the Sanjiang church in Wenzhou and numbers vary, but according to the UK Home office 400 churches were torn down or had crosses forcibly removed and /or demolished in 2014, while The US Department of State estimates it was over 2000 structures including 600 crosses which were destroyed or demolished by the end of 2014. [49] Most of these incidents occurred in that province and both underground and state-sanctioned churches were impacted. In response, "[m]any Zhejiang pastors and congregants openly resisted the campaign, resulting in the detention, prosecution or conviction of several church leaders and activists."25 And, inevitably there was a spike in the numbers of Christians who were being arrested during the years that followed this campaign. [50] A World Watch Monitor report of September 22, 2015, 'Analysis: What to make of China's demolition of crosses', noted: 'Some Christians fear that the Chinese central government is testing how Christians in Zhejiang respond to this pressure. They are concerned that this is an early stage of a new, nationwide wave of discrimination against Christians. Other Christians disagree. While it's true that a small number of "house churches" were closed down recently, most church leaders outside Zhejiang don't report any difference in government attitude towards them. Meetings and gatherings for training have continued as usual. There's no evidence that points to an increase in discrimination on a national level.'26 [51] The panel finds that in reviewing the documents, these incidents are specific to Zhejing Province, which is not where the Appellant was living. The documents note that one impact that official actions/the campaign in Zhejing Province has had, is that it has increased solidarity between China's Christian community (registered and unregistered) and between Catholic and Protestant groups, which is likely one reason why the removal campaign has not spread from Zhejiang to other provinces.27 [52] The Appellant is originally from Guangzhou city and lived there for his entire life with the exception of a three month period in 2017. As such, the RAD has looked at the NDP specifically in relation to incidents involving Christians in Guangzhou city, Guangdong. [53] According to the documents, Guangdong province has traditionally been a more tolerant province for unofficial groups.28 Since 2013, as described above some say there has been a shift for Christians in the country, however information is mixed: Despite an overall tightening in spaces for unregistered churches to operate, in some areas, members of unregistered churches said they had more freedom than in the past to conduct religious services, as long as they gathered only in private and kept congregation numbers low. In some area, however, authorities also shut down churches that tried to maintain a low profile. According to RFA, authorities in Guangdong Province targeted unofficial house churches not regulated by the CCP through its TSPM.29 [54] The RAD has looked at the most recent incidents cited in the NDP30. Specifically, the above quoted US Department of state international religious freedom report31 goes on to cite incidents that have occurred in Guangdong Province in 2016. It speaks of police arresting a member of an unregistered church in Shantou for distributing Christian pamphlets on the streets. It mentions the raid of an unregistered church in Zhuhai where members were detained. It also mentions one incident in Dongguan where the local religious affairs bureau shut down a church in Tangxia Township, instructing them to register with the TSPM and a further incident in Xinhui Township where police shutdown an unregistered church mid service after pressuring the landlord of the property to expel the group allegedly for their refusal to join the TSPM. [55] Another NDP document talks about the arrest and subsequent conviction against Li Hongman, a member of a house church in Guangdong province who was tried for illegal business activity.32 [56] Further, there is a specific Response to Information Request (RIR)33 referenced earlier that talks about the Olive tree church located in Foshan and the fact that this location has been raided and arrests made on at least two occasions; once in 2014 and another time in 2016. The RAD has already found that the Appellant is not wanted for his association with the Olive Tree church. [57] Finally, there are two other references within the NDP to past incidents; one in 2012 in Dongguan and one in Foshan in 2014 (which is unclear, but may be the same incident discussed in the RIR above regarding the Olive tree church).34 [58] The Appellant is from Baiyun district, Guanzhou city. There is one incident within the NDP that was reported in that area regarding Christians. According to the US Department Of State, on June 23 after their landlord terminated a 10-year lease, the Guangfu Protestant Church had their property sealed and were told by authorities to leave Guangzhou. A church member indicated that authorities had tried to force the church to move over the past five years.35 [59] The RAD has considered the documentary evidence regarding Guangdong province and notes that the majority of the incidents cited in the NDP occurred in 2016 or earlier and in areas unrelated to the Appellant. The RAD also finds that incidents in the province are few, relative to the number of Christians in the country overall and in light of the number of Christians practicing in unregistered churches. The RAD finds that in this context there is less than a serious possibility of persecution. [60] The RAD finds that on a balance of probabilities, given the conditions in Guangdong Province and the Appellant's personal circumstances, that the Appellant would be able to practice his religion, worshiping in the Christian congregation of his choice, if he were to return to Guangdong Province in China, and that there is not a serious possibility that he would be persecuted for doing so. CONCLUSION [61] Based on all of the above, and on the RAD's own assessment of the evidence including the audio recording, the supporting documents, and the objective evidence, the RAD finds that the Appellant's allegations of being sought by the authorities and having participated in a banned church are not credible and if he is a Pentecostal Protestant, as he claims, he can practice without fear of persecution. [62] The RAD finds the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor person in need of protection. [63] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "T. Andrews" T. Andrews August 14, 2019 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, at paras 70, 103. 2 RPD Hearing Recording, August 21, 2018, at 1:35:45 3 National Documentation Package for China (NDP) version 30 April 2018, item 9.10 4 National Documentation Package for China (NDP) version 30 April 2018, item 9.10 5 Jiang v. Canada IMM-358-18 (2018 FC 1064) 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 12.11 7 Uddin, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-895-01), Gibson, April 26, 2002, 2002 FCT 451. 8 Gochez, Julio Cesar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3545-99), Dubé, September 7, 2000. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit #6, at pp. 103-104 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 12.1 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 1.8 &12.1, 12.5, 12.6, 12.13 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 1.8 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 12.13, 12.6,12.5 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 1.8, 12.5, 12.13 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #1.8 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.13 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.5 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 2.3, 1.8 and 12.13 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #1.8 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.13 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #1.8 and 12.13 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 1.8 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 1.8 and 2.3 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 1.8 and 12.5 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 12.1 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item # 1.8 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.5 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #1.7 and 12.5 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.1 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.1 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #2.3 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.11 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #1.7, 1.8 and 2.12 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, April 30th, 2018, item #12.1 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-25520 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français