TB8-09809

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-09809 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision September 20, 2019 Date de la décision Panel T. Cheung 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 A. Wong Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX, a citizen of China, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated April 4, 2018, rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The RPD rejected the claim on the basis of the Appellant's lack of credibility as to whether she was subjected to persecution in China, and whether her alleged religious practices are genuine.1 The Appellant's claim [2] The Appellant claims she will be arrested and jailed by the PSB in China for her involvement in the Eastern Lightening sect of Christianity which is prohibited in China. The Appellant claims her close friend introduced her to the religion following the Appellant's divorce in XXXX 2014 which left her depressed and suicidal. Although the Appellant was initially hesitant to become involved in the illegal religion, she was persuaded by her friend to attend a church service on XXXX XXXX, 2014. As she enjoyed the experience, she began to attend service regularly at the private homes of two members. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, the Public Security Bureau (PSB) raided their service, but the Appellant was not caught in the raid, as she was running late. While on her way to the church service, the leader of the house church called her to warn her about the raid, and advised her to immediately go into hiding. The Appellant heeded this advice and hid at her cousin's home. The Appellant's mother informed her that the PSB attended at her home the next day to conduct a search, to interrogate her mother on the Appellant's religious activities, and to demand the Appellant's immediate surrender. Other church members who were arrested had given the PSB information about the Appellant's involvement in the church. The PSB left a summons ordering the Appellant to report to the PSB. The PSB also attended at the homes of the Appellant's close relatives to ask about the Appellant. The Appellant fled China on XXXX XXXX, 2015 with the assistance of a smuggler.2 [3] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Minister) intervened at the RPD hearing and at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD).3 The Minister intervened at the RAD on the issues of program integrity and credibility.4 The RPD decision [4] The determinative issues at the RPD hearing were credibility and the well-foundedness of the Appellant's claim. At the conclusion of the RPD testimony, the Minister's counsel submitted in closing that he was satisfied with the Appellant's identity which was no longer a contested issue.5 [5] To summarize the RPD's findings: a. the RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's untruthfulness to immigration officials upon her entry to Canada; b. the RPD found it was unlikely the Appellant would be able to exit China on her own genuine passport if she was wanted by the PSB; and, c. the RPD rejected the sur place claim.6 [6] The RPD determined that the entirety of the Appellant's claim could be fraudulent due to her untruthfulness at the port of entry when she first arrived in Canada. Specifically, the RPD drew a negative inference because the Appellant chose to travel to Canada using fraudulent documents; upon her entry into Canada, the Appellant was untruthful to Canadian immigration officials about her occupation, marital status, child, and cousins in Canada; and, she recanted her misrepresentations only when she realized she may not be accepted into Canada.7 [7] On the issue of the Appellant's exit from China, the RPD member found the facts alleged in this claim are sufficiently similar to justify reliance on the Jurisprudential Guide (JG) of TB6-11632.8 The JG has since been revoked on June 28, 2019. The Appellant made a written application to argue for the appeal to be allowed on the basis that the JG has been revoked, and therefore the RPD decision cannot be sustained given the RPD's explicit reliance on the JG. In the alternative, the Appellant argued that the RPD's analysis related to the exit from China cannot withstand scrutiny because the RPD relied on a JG that contains errors on the issue of exit from China, and the JG is no longer relevant.9 [8] The RPD rejected the sur place claim for reasons of the Appellant's lack of knowledge about her alleged religious belief; her vague and evasive testimony; no indications that the photographs of her religious practices in Canada came to the attention of the authorities; the Appellant would not be perceived as a follower of an underground church by Chinese authorities; the Appellant would not practice the religion at all if she returns to China; and the Appellant's religious practice is not genuine.10 DETERMINATION [9] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD refers the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. ROLE OF THE RAD [10] The standard of review at the RAD is correctness on questions of law, fact, or mixed fact and law where there is no issue of credibility in the oral evidence.11 The RAD can accord deference when the RPD has a meaningful advantage in making a finding of fact or mixed fact and law.12 Unless otherwise stated, the standard of review of the RPD decision is correctness. The RAD carries out its own analysis of the record, on a correctness standard, to determine whether the RPD erred.13 ANALYSIS [11] The Appellant argued that the RPD made unsustainable credibility findings.14 The Appellant's untruthfulness to immigration officials at the point of entry [12] The Appellant was untruthful to Canadian immigration officials upon her arrival to Canada. It was only the possibility of her return to China that led the Appellant to recant some of her earlier answers and to tell the truth. The RPD found the Appellant's ongoing deliberate deceit negatively impacted her credibility.15 [13] The Appellant testified at the RPD that when she arrived in Canada, she conveyed the following false information to the immigration official: she had no problems with the police in China; she had a four year old boy; she was a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; she has a husband; she has a cousin in Canada.16 The Appellant admitted that she lied to immigration officials upon her entry to Canada.17 In actuality, the Appellant has a daughter, the Appellant was an XXXX XXXX XXXX in China, she was divorced in 2014, and she has two cousins in Canada.18 After the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officer told the Appellant that she would be returned to China, she made a refugee claim alleging that the PSB issued a summons against her for her involvement in the Eastern Lightening religion. [14] The Appellant testified that she was following the instructions of the smuggler to tell the CBSA officer that she came to Canada to travel. The Appellant believed those were the appropriate responses to give, according to the smuggler's instructions. She testified that she had planned to later find a consultant in Canada to help her make the refugee claim in Canada.19 [15] When asked why she told the CBSA officer one story and then another story shortly thereafter, she testified that "They said, they are going to send me back to China the same night, I was very fearful to return back to China."20 The Appellant repeatedly testified that she asked the officer how she can file a refugee claim because she would face danger if sent back to China.21 In light of the testimony, I accept the Appellant's argument that when she realized that she may be denied entry to Canada, she started telling the truth to immigration officials.22 [16] I have considered the Minister's argument at the RAD that the Appellant's misrepresentations to Canadian immigration officials contradict the Appellant's alleged subjective fear and her stated intent of seeking safety in Canada, as a reasonable person would not risk damaging their credibility in the eyes of immigration officials.23 I disagree with the Minister's counsel's argument. In assessing the Appellant's misrepresentations to the CBSA officer, I am guided by the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Canada, to be mindful that "most refugees have lived experiences in their country of origin which give them good reason to distrust persons in authority". This is incongruent with the Minister's argument that a reasonable person would not risk damaging their credibility to immigration officials, as the actions of a "reasonable person" must be assessed from the perspective of a person who has fled persecution and has just arrived in Canada. Using the same rationale, the Federal Court of Canada has held that a claimant's untruthfulness at the port of entry related to false travel documents, or the destruction of travel documents is peripheral and of very limited value to a determination of credibility.24 [17] Applying the jurisprudence to the RAD's independent review of the foregoing testimony, I agree with the Appellant's argument that the use of incorrect information to apply for a Canadian visitor's visa is not a valid basis for impugning the Appellant's credibility. I also find the Appellant's intention, upon entry into Canada, was to make a refugee claim after finding a consultant to assist with the claim. The Appellant's responses to the CBSA officer were untruthful because she was following the instructions of the smuggler who applied for a travel document on her behalf.25 After she was told that she would be sent back to China, she responded by asking how to make a refugee claim. Because she recanted the misrepresentations to the CBSA officer shortly thereafter, the Appellant's credibility is not impugned for having initially been untruthful at the port of entry. The Appellant's exit from China [18] The RPD relied upon the now revoked China JG on the basis that the facts alleged in this claim are sufficiently similar to justify reliance on the JG.26 The RPD disbelieved the allegation that the Appellant was able to exit China on her own genuine passport with the assistance of a smuggler, if she was wanted by the PSB. The RPD found the Appellant had no difficult passing through security check points because the authorities had no interest in her. Based on the adverse credibility finding related to the Appellant's exit from China, the RPD found a lack of credible and trustworthy evidence that she was wanted by the PSB when she exited China on her own genuine passport. The RPD also found the Appellant has no subjective fear; the RPD drew a negative inference against the claim that she was persecuted or that she was ever a member of the Eastern Lightening sect of Christianity.27 [19] The Appellant argued that the RPD's findings on the exit from China were based on speculation and unfounded conjecture on what could or could not have happened at the airport. The Appellant argued that the RPD assumed the smuggler carried out actions at the airport or needed connections at the airport, when there is no evidence that the smuggler's plan involved circumvention at the airport when she exited China. The Appellant argued that the smuggler could have bribed a security contact to delete her incriminating information from the database in advance of her flight date.28 [20] The Minister argued that the RPD was reasonable in drawing an adverse inference over the Appellant's credibility from her ability to exit China, as there is no evidence that the smuggler bribed a security contact to delete her incriminating information from law enforcement databases. The Minister's arguments are encapsulated as follows: a. The allegation that the PSB continued to look for her in China undermines the argument that her incriminating information may have been deleted from Chinese authorities. b. The smuggler would not likely have the means to eliminate the Appellant's information from law enforcement databases. c. Although an airline employee may not have access to the Golden Shield, passengers wanted by the Chinese authorities would be flagged in the airline's systems at check-in, alerting employees to a potential issue with the passenger. Therefore, the Appellant would likely have been flagged by airline employees at the check-in counter. d. The Appellant's purchase of the airline tickets using her real identity and valid Chinese passport would have come to the attention of the Chinese authorities for review prior to the Appellant checking in for her flight.29 [21] As the JG has been revoked, I am guided by the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Canada in Huang and Yan which held that a determination hinging on China's exit controls is fact-driven.30 Because the JG has been revoked, I rely directly on the objective country documents found in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for the RAD's independent review of the evidence. [22] The Chinese government utilizes a sophisticated surveillance system called the Golden Shield to censor specific search requests, to monitor the activities of Internet users, and to track dissidents offline. The Golden Shield works in conjunction with the national policing database containing information about criminal fugitives, passports, and exit and entry records.31 [23] A person departing from China may be requested to show their passport four times at the airport: 1) upon check-in at the airline check-in counter, by airline staff; 2) when passing through security into the secure transit area, by airport security staff; 3) at departure immigration, by immigration officers; and 4) at the boarding gate when boarding the aircraft, by airline staff. [24] The passport is scanned at two of these checkpoints: at the airline check-in counter and at the immigration departure counter. The airline ticket is also scanned when entering the "secure transit area" and at the airline boarding gate.32 [25] A source at an airline indicated that a person's passport is scanned upon check-in to gather advanced passenger information (API). Passengers leaving China must pass through exit immigration control points where passengers are seen by Chinese immigration agents prior to approaching the boarding gate.33 [26] A source at the International Air Transport Association (IATA) indicated that, to the best their knowledge, the departure procedure at airports in China seems to involve three steps: check-in, immigration and security. Passengers at each checkpoint are required to show their passports. At check-in, API is usually inputted manually or by scanning the passport. At the immigration checkpoint, there is a physical inspection of the passport. At the security checkpoint, the passport information is matched with the boarding card for verification, either using barcode readers on the boarding pass or with a visual check.34 [27] According to the objective country evidence, if the Chinese authorities wish to prevent a Chinese citizen from exiting the country at a border crossing, the High People's Court must issue a written notification to prevent the person from departing at the entry-exit port, and there must be coordination with the relevant public security organ. The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law (December 2012) states: If a foreigner or a Chinese citizen must be prevented from leaving China at a border control station, the people's court accepting the case shall report up the hierarchy to the High People's Court, and a written notification of preventing person from departing through entry-exit port shall be issued by the Highest People's Court, and work with the public security organ of the corresponding level for handle control formalities.35 [28] The objective country evidence suggests that Chinese authorities have utilized exit controls for departing passengers at airports and other border crossings to deny foreign travel to some dissidents and persons employed in sensitive government posts. However, the objective evidence also gives examples of travellers employing fraudulent means to evade border security controls, which suggest the possibility of breaching exit control mechanisms at Chinese airports. Moreover, according to IATA, the general concept of departure procedures at airports in China is the same, but each airport varies in its procedure.36 Therefore, in light of the objective country evidence, I find the existence of the Golden Shield is not conclusive evidence that no breach could exist, especially if a smuggler is used to take advantage of variances in procedures and in enforcement to circumvent security measures. [29] Nor is the existence of the Golden Shield conclusive evidence that a person subject to a summons is prevented absolutely from exiting the country. As stated in the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law, there needs to be a "written notification" from the Highest People's Court to prevent persons from departing through entry-exit ports, and there must be coordination with the respective public security organ.37 [30] In the RAD's independent assessment of the evidence, I find the alleged summons for the Appellant to appear at the PSB for interrogation is not the same as the Highest People's Court issuing a written notification to prevent departure.38 In the absence of evidence of written notification issued by the Highest People's Court for the purpose of prohibiting exit, it is conceivable that a Chinese citizen could exit the country if they were issued a summons for interrogation. [31] I apply the principle that findings about China's exit controls are made on a case by case basis, driven by the facts.39 I find the Appellant's argument is supported by her testimony and the objective country evidence. The Appellant argued that a traveller's identity document is scanned at two checkpoints: the airline check-in counter where airline employees do not have access to the PSB database, and at the immigration departure counter where a need for bribery or circumvention could arise. The immigration departure counter is the check point where the Chinese border officials and airport security staff have access to the Policenet database of citizens who have been convicted by crimes or who are wanted by authorities.40 [32] The Appellant's argument is supported by her testimony which is consistent with some elements of the country evidence that the passport is scanned at two of the four checkpoints, namely at the airline check-in counter and at the immigration departure counter.41 The Appellant testified that she followed the smuggler who was ahead of her when she passed through two checkpoints at the airport. At the first checkpoint, the Appellant's passport was checked, and the Appellant was checked for dangerous goods. At the second checkpoint, the Appellant's passport was checked visually, but not with a machine.42 Since the passport was not scanned by a machine at the second checkpoint, the possibility exists that the Appellant was able to exit without impediment. [33] Having considered the Minister's arguments that the Appellant would have been flagged by airline staff, or she would have come to the attention of the Chinese authorities for review prior to her checking in because she purchase the airfare using her real identity, I note that Chinese secrecy laws render it extraordinarily difficult to obtain accurate information on exit controls at Chinese airports and information-sharing between security networks in China.43 According to the objective country evidence: ... Chinese secrecy laws make it extraordinarily difficult to obtain accurate information on politically sensitive subjects, such as restrictions on the freedom of travel .... As such, it is often impossible to obtain official records regarding surveillance techniques and capabilities, criminal investigations in politically sensitive cases, the treatment of certain ethnic minority groups, and procedures involved in restricting the ability of an individual to travel. Moreover, despite recently announced intent to clarify the content of state secrets laws, such regulations remain vague and subject to the discretion of Communist Party officials.44 [34] What can be ascertained from the foregoing country evidence is that it is difficult to obtain accurate information on restrictions on freedom to travel, and on surveillance techniques; and Chinese regulations remain vague and subject to the discretion of Communist Party officials.45 [35] Moreover, any evidence of the modus operandi of smugglers and the extent of the collusion and how they collude with government officials will be opaque as it is not in the smugglers' interests to divulge such information, as it would expose their smuggling operation to the risk of law enforcement. Therefore, it is speculation to accept the Minister's arguments, given the opacity of how a smuggler operates, and the difficulty in obtaining accurate information about exit restrictions in China. [36] To sum up, for the following reasons, I find the available objective country evidence supports a finding that the existence of the Golden Shield is not conclusive evidence that the exit controls could not be breached such that a person subject to a summons is prevented absolutely from exiting the country using their own valid passport: * it is difficult to obtain accurate information on restrictions to entry and exit controls due to Chinese secrecy laws; * the opacity of how smugglers operate means that it is mere speculation as to what the smuggler is or is not able to accomplish to facilitate the claimant to exit the country; and, * although the general concept of departure procedures at airports in China are the same, each airport varies in its departure procedure.46 [37] The RPD determined it was not credible that the Appellant was wanted by the PSB because she was able to exit China on her own genuine passport. Based on the RAD's foregoing independent review of the evidence related to the Appellant's exit, I find the RPD erred in extending the negative credibility finding to draw a negative inference against the claim that she was persecuted, or that she was ever a member of the Eastern Lightening sect of Christianity.47 [38] The RAD's finding related to the ability to bypass the Golden Shield, in and of itself, is neither a favourable nor a negative finding for the Appellant's credibility. Rather, it is a neutral finding vis à vis the credibility of the Appellant. As such, I will examine the other aspects of the merits of the claim of subjective fear. Merits of the claim of subjective fear [39] According to the Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, the Appellant claimed the situation of her divorce in XXXX 2014 caused her to "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX."48 The Appellant testified her depression started in XXXX 2013. She testified that she stopped taking medication in or around XXXX 2014. She was unable to answer the type of medication she took.49 The documentation of her medical history indicates a "minor depression" from XXXX XXXX, 2013 to XXXX XXXX, 2014. The prescribed medication was often illegible. She was diagnosed with "XXXX" at the Chinese Traditional Medicine Hospital from XXXX 2014 until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014.50 There is no indication in the medical documentation that the Appellant had XXXX XXXX. Nor did the RPD member ask why the medical documentation contains no reference to this symptom of XXXX. [40] I have examined the Divorce Certificate produced by the Appellant.51 I am cognizant that government-issued documents are presumed to be valid, absent some evidence to the contrary.52 There must be evidence to support a rejection of an official document as invalid.53 In comparing the Appellant's Divorce Certificate with the format of the Divorce Certificate in the country documents, I find the Appellant's Divorce Certificate does not conform with the appearance of a Divorce Certificate issued in China.54 [41] I also find the Appellant's Divorce Certificate is insufficient proof that the parties to the divorce fulfilled the prescribed procedures to attain a divorce in accordance with the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China.55 According to this law, divorce is granted if both spouses are willing parties to the divorce, and have made proper arrangements for their children and have properly disposed of their property.56 According to the Regulation on Marriage Registration, a divorce certificate is issued only if the parties to the marriage have reached a settlement with respect to property, debt and the care of children. To obtain a divorce registration, the parties shall provide a signed divorce agreement setting out the "decisions of consensus on childcare, property and debt handling".57 [42] As the Appellant did not provide a signed divorce agreement as the basis of the Divorce Certificate, I find the Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that she was divorced in accordance with the laws and regulations of China. [43] The objective country evidence of China's divorce legislation and regulations supports a finding that the Appellant has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that she had undergone a valid divorce which was cited as the cause of a depression that propelled her to join the underground religion. [44] In the testimony, the RPD member asked the Appellant when she divorced, the reason for the divorce, her ex-husband's name, and the length of the marriage.58 There were no further questions asked on the circumstances of the divorce, such as how the divorce was obtained, and whether there was mediation to deal with the issues of child custody, disposition of property and the handling of debts: these are issues that need to be addressed in the divorce agreement. For this reason, I refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination on this issue. Sur place claim [45] The Appellant challenged the remainder of the RPD's findings without making specific arguments about the sur place claim. The RAD's independent review of the evidence indicates the RPD is correct in finding that there is no evidence to suggest the authorities in China would be aware or would become aware of the Appellant's religious activities in Canada.59 [46] The Appellant testified that she started attending the church in Toronto on XXXX XXXX, 2015. She takes public transit to attend weekly services on Sunday afternoons. The Appellant gave two names of friends from the church in Toronto. The friends wrote letters stating that the Appellant attends church regularly, she prays, and is a devoted believer in the religion.60 She testified that she and her group evangelizes to non-believers on the street near the residential house church on XXXX XXXX XXXX in Toronto.61 At the RPD hearing, the Appellant gave an example of how she evangelizes.62 [47] As it is difficult to assess the Appellant's credibility without more evidence of the circumstances of the Appellant's divorce and life circumstances that led to her XXXX and subsequent religious activities, it is also difficult to assess the merits of the sur place claim. The sur place claim is strengthened, if the Appellant's allegations of the life events in China are credible. However, if the allegations of her life circumstances in China that propelled her to join the underground church are not credible, such negative credibility findings can impact the assessment of the genuineness of her religious belief in the sur place claim, and whether she would continue to practice the underground religion if she returns to China.63 DIRECTIONS [48] The matter is referred back to the RPD for redetermination with regard to the following issues: a. The Appellant's life circumstances related to her divorce and the mental health issues which were the reasons for her involvement in the underground church; b. The genuineness of the Appellant's religious belief in the sur place claim; and c. Any other issues that may be relevant to the determination of the claim. CONCLUSION [49] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD refers the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. (signed) "T. Cheung" T. Cheung September 20, 2019 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, p. 2, para. 2. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Narrative, pp. 19 to 23. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 7 to 9, pp. 128 to 248. 4 Exhibit M-1, Notice of intervention dated June 8, 2018. 5 Transcript of RPD Testimony, p. 22. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 6 to 15, paras. 19 to 28; 29 to 42; 43 to 60. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 7 to 8, paras. 21 to 28. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 8 to 9, para. 30. 9 Exhibit P-3, Rule 29 Application To Make Additional Submisstions dated July 8, 2019. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 11 to 15, paras. 43 to 60. 11 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 12 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 70. 13 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, p. 106, para. 6. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 6 to 8, paras. 19 to 28. 16 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, pp. 12 to 14. 17 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, p. 15. 18 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, p. 15. 19 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, p. 16. 20 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, p. 16. 21 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, pp. 15 to 16. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, p. 107, para. 8. 23 Exhibit M-1, Notice of Intervention dated June 8, 2018, pp. 3 to 4, paras. 1 to 3. 24 Attakora v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 99 NR 168 (FCA); Cooper v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 118 (CanLII), para. 4; Lubana v. Canada (MCI) 2003 FCT 116, para. 13; RKL v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 116 (CanLII), para 13; Hamdar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 382 (CanLII), para. 47. 25 Transcript of RPD Testimony, pp. 9 to 11, 15 to 16, 25. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 8 to 9, para. 30. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 8 to 11, paras. 29 to 42. 28 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, pp. 107 to 111, paras. 9 to 16. 29 Notice of intervention dated June 8, 2018, para. 4 to 10. 30 Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 762, para. 66; Jiang 2018 FC 1064 para 25; Yan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 146, para 20. 31 National Documentation Package, China, 28 June 2019, tab 10.4: The Public Security Bureau (PSB) Golden Shield Project, including implementation and effectiveness; Policenet, including areas of operation; level and effectiveness of information sharing by the authorities (2010-February 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 7 March 2014. CHN104762.E. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 35 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.2: Exit controls and security measures at airports for Chinese citizens travelling overseas, including procedures at check points and the use of computerized identity verification; sharing of information with officials at airports (2011-February 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 March 2014. CHN104761.E. 36 National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.2: Exit controls and security measures at airports for Chinese citizens travelling overseas, including procedures at check points and the use of computerized identity verification; sharing of information with officials at airports (2011-February 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 March 2014. CHN104761.E. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 151 to 152, Summons. 39 Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 762; Sun v. Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 387. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, pp. 109 to 110, paras. 12 to 15. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 42 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, pp. 28 to 29. 43 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Argument, p. 110, para. 15. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.2: Exit controls and security measures at airports for Chinese citizens travelling overseas, including procedures at check points and the use of computerized identity verification; sharing of information with officials at airports (2011-February 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 March 2014. CHN104761.E. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.2: Exit controls and security measures at airports for Chinese citizens travelling overseas, including procedures at check points and the use of computerized identity verification; sharing of information with officials at airports (2011-February 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 6 March 2014. CHN104761.E. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3c, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, tab 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, pp. 8 to 11, paras. 29 to 42. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 20, BOC Narrative, para. 2. 49 Transcript of RPD Testimony, July 5, 2017, pp. 24 to 26. 50 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 63 to 74, General Outpatient Medical Booklet. 51 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 48 to 49, Divorce Certificate. 52 Berhane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 510 (CanLII). 53 Tsymbalyuk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1306 (CanLII); para. 27; Halili v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 999 (CanLII), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1335; Cheema v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 224 (CanLII), [2004] F.C.J. No. 255; Iqbal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1219 (CanLII), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1526; Ramalingan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 7241 (FC), [1998] F.C.J. No. 10. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 5.8. Marriage and divorce certificates, including physical characteristics, regulations and standards governing their appearance and content; requirements and procedures to obtain them (2014-August 2017) see the "Explanation Concerning The Format Of Marriage Certificates", Public Services and Procurement Canada (June 14, 2017). 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 5.8. Marriage and divorce certificates, including physical characteristics, regulations and standards governing their appearance and content; requirements and procedures to obtain them (2014-August 2017). CHN105846.E. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 5.8. Marriage and divorce certificates, including physical characteristics, regulations and standards governing their appearance and content; requirements and procedures to obtain them (2014-August 2017). CHN105846.E 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 5.8. Marriage and divorce certificates, including physical characteristics, regulations and standards governing their appearance and content; requirements and procedures to obtain them (2014-August 2017). CHN105846.E 57 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 5.8. Marriage and divorce certificates, including physical characteristics, regulations and standards governing their appearance and content; requirements and procedures to obtain them (2014-August 2017). CHN105846.E. 57 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 5.8. Marriage and divorce certificates, including physical characteristics, regulations and standards governing their appearance and content; requirements and procedures to obtain them (2014-August 2017). CHN105846.E. 58 Transcript of RPD Testimony, July 5, 2017, pp. 15 to 16. 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision and Reasons, p. 14, paras 55 to 56. 60 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 155 to 160, Letters of Support. 61 Transcript of RPD Testimony, November 6, 2017, pp. 18 to 21, p. 31. 62 Transcript of RPD testimony, November 6, 2017, p. 21. 63 Jiang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1067, para. 27; Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 998 (CanLII), para. 24 to 26; Jin v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 595 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 677; El Aoudie v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 450 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 487; Hannoon v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 448 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 480; Jia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 444 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 463; Huang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 205 (CanLII); Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 614 (CanLII); Yin v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 544 (CanLII); Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 677 (CanLII), [2009] FCJ No 1391) --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-09809 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 19 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