TB8-25196

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-25196 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 July 28, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Karen Wallace Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jordan Duviner 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) is a citizen of China. He is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated September 11, 2018, which rejects his claim for refugee protection. [2] The RPD rejected the claim because they found that the Appellant is not credible. They did not believe that he is a genuine Christian of the Shouter denomination or that the Public Security Bureau (PSB) are interested in him. [3] No new evidence has been submitted in this appeal. An oral hearing is not requested. [4] The determinative issues in this appeal are whether the RPD erred in assessing the credibility of the Appellant and the sur place claim. DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS [6] The Appellant alleges that he is a Christian of the Shouter denomination. He fears persecution and arrest by Chinese officials because the Shouter faith is banned in China. [7] The Appellant alleges that he was introduced to the Shouter faith in September 2015 by a friend who recommended the faith because the Appellant was stressed and depressed due to marital problems. The Appellant began praying at home and allegedly began attending an underground house church in December 2015. [8] The Appellant and his wife divorced in XXXX 2016. In April 2017, she threatened to report his religious activities to the PSB if he did not pay her a large sum of money. He began making monthly payments to her. [9] The Appellant allegedly hired a smuggler who helped him get a Canadian visitor's visa. He arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and claimed refugee protection in November 2017. [10] After the Appellant came to Canada, his ex-wife allegedly reported his religious activities to the PSB. The PSB allegedly searched his home in November 2017 and accused him of being involved in illegal religious activities. He was ordered to report to the PSB. When he did not report, a summons was allegedly issued for him on XXXX XXXX, 2017. ANALYSIS [11] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 I have conducted my own independent analysis of the evidence. This included listening to the recording of the hearing and reviewing all the documents submitted. The RPD Decision [12] The RPD rejected the claim for refugee protection because they determined that the Appellant is not credible. The RPD did not believe that the Appellant is a genuine Christian of the Shouter denomination or that the PSB are interested in him. [13] The RPD also determined that the Appellant's supporting documents did not establish his religious identity and that his limited religious activity in Canada has not come to the attention of the authorities in China. [14] The RPD determined that the Appellant is not credible due to the following: * The Appellant had limited knowledge of key elements of the Shouter faith; * The Appellant provided inconsistent testimony about the requirements to be baptised; * The Appellant could not explain why he delayed purchasing his own copy of the Bible, and had limited understanding of the contents of the Shouter's version of the Bible; and * The PSB Summons is not genuine. The Appellant's Position [15] The Appellant argues that the RPD breached procedural fairness by relying on extrinsic evidence in its analysis of the requirements to be baptised. This evidence was not disclosed to the Appellant. [16] The Appellant also argues that the RPD's assessment of the Appellant's religious identity and the PSB summons was unreasonable; and that the RPD applied the wrong legal test in assessing the sur place claim Breach of Procedural Fairness [17] The RPD determined that the Appellant's explanation about why he has not been baptised is inconsistent with the information contained on the website of the church he attends. The RPD made a negative credibility inference based on this inconsistency. [18] Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the RPD decision state that: The Appellant testified that he must attend his church in Canada for at least a year before he can be baptised; and the RPD checked The Church in Toronto's website to determine what the requirements are to be baptised. According to the website, the only requirement is a genuine faith in the Salvation of Jesus Christ. There is no mention of a requirement to attend the Church for at least one year. [19] The information contained on the website was not disclosed at the RPD hearing. The RPD checked the website after the hearing and did not advise the Appellant of the information about baptism on the website. [20] The Appellant argues that the RPD breached procedural fairness requirements by relying on extrinsic evidence that was not disclosed to the Appellant. The RPD must provide a claimant with an opportunity to respond to extrinsic evidence if the RPD is relying on it in its decision. [21] I note that the Appellant provided the RPD with evidence about The Church in Toronto and its website at the RPD hearing. The Appellant provided information about the Church in one of the documents contained in their "Shouters Package".2 That document contained a printout of numerous pages of the Church's website. As a result, information about the Church and its website is not new or extrinsic evidence that was not known to the Appellant. [22] However, I acknowledge that the pages provided at the RPD hearing are from 2014 and the information contained in the website at the time the RPD viewed it in 2018, may have been updated and changed. Also, the pages that were provided at the RPD hearing do not mention the requirements to be baptised. Therefore, it was an error for the RPD to rely on the 2018 information on the website about baptism to contradict the Appellant's testimony, without first giving him the opportunity to respond to that information. [23] Since the Appellant was not made aware of the information contained in the Church's website about baptism, it cannot be relied on as a basis for a negative credibility inference about the Appellant's religious identity or beliefs. [24] The RPD erred by not giving the Appellant the opportunity to respond to the evidence contained in the website. However, this error has been remedied on appeal. The Appellant has now provided submissions on this evidence which I have considered. It is plausible that the Appellant was told that he must attend church for one year before he can be baptised, even though the website does not specifically state this requirement. Also, the error is not fatal to the RPD's decision to reject the claim. I agree with that rejection because there are additional grounds to support a finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not a genuine Christian of the Shouter denomination. Therefore, no purpose would be served in sending the claim back to the RPD for reconsideration on this basis.3 The Appellant's religious identity is not established [25] The RPD determined that the Appellant is not a genuine Christian of the Shouter denomination due to inconsistencies in the evidence about why Shouters shout and the requirements to be baptised, the Appellant's delay in obtaining his own bible, and his vague knowledge of the contents of the bible, as well as the key elements of the Shouter faith. [26] The Appellant argues that the RPD engaged in a microscopic assessment of the Appellant's religious identity. His faith must be assessed based on the sincerity of his beliefs, not the theoretical correctness of his answers. [27] I agree with the Appellant that the RPD erred by focusing on microscopic issues in its analysis of the Appellant's inability to indicate the details of exactly how a Shouter should evangelize, and his description of why Shouters shout. [28] However, I agree with the RPD's overall determination that the Appellant's testimony regarding key aspects of his faith was vague and lacked the detail expected of someone who is a genuine Christian of the Shouter denomination. Therefore, I also agree with the RPD's conclusion that the Appellant is not, on a balance of probabilities, a genuine believer. [29] Overall, the Appellant's testimony was not forthcoming, spontaneous or detailed. It was often brief, generalized and vague. He frequently paused for a long time before he answered a question or simply repeated earlier answers that did not address the question he was being asked. [30] For example, when the Appellant was asked why he did not obtain his own copy of the Bible until a few months prior to the hearing, he simply answered that he bought a Bible in April of 2018. When he was asked again why he did not buy a Bible earlier than that, he did not answer the question. He was directed to answer the question, he simply repeated that he bought the Bible in April at church. Later he said that he did not need a Bible because his church gave out "small pieces of paper".4 [31] When the Appellant's counsel asked him why his religion is important to him, he did not provide any answer initially. He was silent. When he was asked again why his faith is important to him or how it changed his life, he stated that he came out of the valley when he prayed.5 [32] When the Appellant was asked to describe, in his own words, what it means to him to be a Shouter and practice his faith, he stated that he goes to church on Sunday and shouts the name of the Lord.6 [33] The RPD asked broad, open-ended questions which are not trivia type questions to test the theoretical correctness of the Appellant's religious knowledge. They are questions that provided him with the opportunity to testify about his faith and what it means to him. Yet, the Appellant provided very general and vague answers. [34] The Appellant's testimony was also vague when he was asked to describe what took place at a typical house church service in China. He stated that the service was usually about three hours in length and it began by welcoming new members. Then they read a paper booklet and they lowered their voices to shout. When he was asked to provide examples of what they read, he said Jesus is the way to the father. When he was asked about readings that were meaningful to him, he stated that whatever was read was meaningful.7 [35] Since the Appellant alleges that he attended services in China once per week and the service lasted for three hours, it is reasonable to expect the Appellant to provide more than the very general details he provided about a typical service. [36] My assessment of the genuineness of the Appellant's religious identity is not based on his failure to accurately recite particular religious facts or sections of the Bible. I acknowledge that an assessment should not be based on a test of trivia type questions. However, it is reasonable to expect a genuine believer to have general knowledge of the main aspects of their faith. [37] When the Appellant was asked to describe what the basic beliefs of the Shouters are, he replied that it is just to believe and trust in Jesus.8 [38] Documentation that the Appellant provided about the Shouter faith at the RPD hearing states that the Shouters faith is evangelical. Believers reject any human thought that goes beyond what the Bible says. Bible reading and study is central to their religious practice, they have their own non-standard version of the Bible, and it is the duty of every Shouter to go out and preach the gospel to neighbours, relatives, friends and colleagues.9 [39] The Appellant was aware that the Shouter's version of the Bible is different from the mainstream Christianity version. He knew who the founder of the Shouters religion is, and that the Shouters use a restoration version of the Bible which contains the founder's words. Yet, he was unable to explain what any of those words or messages are.10 He displayed only basic knowledge of general concepts. [40] Since Bible study is central to the Shouter faith, and there is a duty to spread the gospel, it is reasonably expected that the Appellant would be able to provide some general understanding of the founder's words or the main messages or lessons in the Shouter's version of the Bible. The fact that he could not, leads me to make a negative credibility inference regarding the genuineness of his beliefs. [41] The fact that the Appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation about why he delayed purchasing his own Bible after he arrived in Canada when Bible study is central to the Shouter faith, that he only reads it "when he has time", and has not read the whole Bible11 also leads me to make a negative credibility inference regarding the genuineness of his beliefs. These factors would generally be insufficient to support a finding that a person does not have sincere Christian beliefs. A person can be Christian without studying the Bible or owning a copy. However, Bible study is of central importance to the Shouter faith. Therefore, a negative credibility inference is supported when the Appellant's actions do not suggest that Bible study is of central importance to him. [42] I have considered that there is a very low standard on refugee claimants to demonstrate religious knowledge as a requirement for proving religious identity. However, in considering all the evidence, the Appellant did not provide sufficient credible evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, his religious identity as a genuine Christian of the Shouter denomination.12 The PSB summons is not genuine [43] The RPD determined that the PSB summons is not genuine because it does not conform to any of the sample summonses in the National Documentation Package for China. They found that the structure and format of the summons is not consistent with the samples. [44] The Appellant argues that the RPD's assessment of the summons is unreasonable, and an error of fact, because the summons is consistent with one of the samples in the National Documentation Package and the samples are outdated. [45] The RPD decision provides limited reasons to support the conclusion that the summons is not genuine. The summons is somewhat consistent with one of the samples in the National Documentation Package, so it is unclear why the RPD concluded that the summons does not conform to any of the samples. [46] I have done my own analysis of the Appellant's summons13 and I agree with the RPD's conclusion that the summons is not genuine. I have compared the Appellant's summons to the sample of an authentic summons in the National Documentation Package for China. Although it is similar to the authentic sample in many aspects, there are significant differences. [47] The National Documentation Package establishes that the form and content of the various summonses in China has not changed since 2003 and there are no regional or jurisdictional differences in the standard document.14 This addresses the Appellant's argument that the samples are outdated. This argument is speculative. The Appellant provided no evidence to establish that the samples have been updated. [48] The sample summons is found in item 9.10 in the National Documentation Package. It is sample four on page 8 of the document. It is also found in item 9.3 in the Package. The English translation of that summons is found in item 9.2 of the National Documentation Package. [49] One difference between the sample summons and the Appellant's summons is found in the reference to the statute or law that the summons is issued under. There is an error in the name of the statute in the Appellant's summons. [50] The sample summons states that the summons is issued under Article 82 of the Public Security Administration and Punishment Law. [51] The Appellant's summons states that it is issued under Article 82 of the Public Security Administrative Punishment Law (emphasis added). [52] Another difference is the title of the two documents. The Appellant's summons is titled "Notice of Summoning". The sample summons is titled either a "Notice of Summons" or a "Summons for Appearance". [53] A significant difference is found in the format of the two documents. The order of the information contained in the documents is set out differently. The sample begins by identifying what illegal activity the person is alleged or suspected to be involved in. It then states that the person is being summoned under the applicable statue and ends by informing them where and when to appear for interrogation. [54] The Appellant's summons has a different format. It begins by naming the statute (incorrectly named). It then states where and when to attend, and ends by informing the person what illegal activity they are involved in. It does not say they are suspected or alleged to be involved in the activity. It says they are involved. [55] Each of these differences, on their own, may not support a finding that the summons is not genuine. Yet, the Federal Court has recognized that even differences in small or microscopic details may be the way that a forgery is exposed. Whether those small difference are sufficient to conclude that a document is not authentic will depend on the facts of each case.15 [56] I have considered the general rule that foreign documents are presumed to be valid. However, in this case there are significant and cumulative differences in both the form and content of the summons when compared to the sample. I have also considered the widespread availability of fraudulent documents in China.16 Considering all of the evidence, there is a sufficient basis to find that the summons is not genuine. I make this finding on a balance of probabilities. [57] The fact that the Appellant provided a fraudulent summons to support his claim, leads me to make an adverse inference against the Appellant's credibility. Furthermore, it is a factor that rebuts the presumption that his sworn testimony is true. My finding that the summons is not genuine, together with my consideration of all of the evidence, also leads me to conclude that the Appellant is not wanted by the PSB. [58] My additional findings about the genuineness of the summons is not a "new issue" that requires notice to and submissions from the Appellant. The issue of the genuineness of the summons is known to the Appellant since it is set out in the RPD decision. Also, the Appellant argues in his appeal memo that the summons is genuine because it is consistent with the sample in the National Documentation Package. The Federal Court has recognized that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is permitted to make additional findings on a known issue without inviting additional submissions or holding a hearing.17 The sur place claim is not established [59] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of the sur place claim. They failed to apply the correct legal test by requiring evidence that the Appellant's activities have come to the attention of the authorities in China. The correct test is whether the Appellant's activities have placed him at risk of harm upon return to China. The Appellant further argues that, even if the RPD did not believe that the Appellant was a genuine Christian in China, they still must assess whether he is a genuine practitioner in Canada. [60] The RPD did a limited analysis of the sur place claim. The RPD found that the Appellant is not a genuine believer, and his limited activities in Canada have not come to the attention of the Chinese authorities. I agree with the Appellant that an assessment of the sur place element of the claim requires more than that. [61] In my own independent analysis, based on the Appellant's religious activity in Canada, I find that there is an insufficient basis for the sur place claim. The Appellant has not established that he is a genuine follower of the Shouter faith or that his activity has come, or will come, to the attention of the authorities, or that there is a serious possibility of persecution based on his activity if he returns to China. [62] The Appellant alleges that he attends church services at The Church in Toronto. He testified that he attends the Sunday service "if he is not busy"18 and has attended about 25 times since he arrived in Canada.19 He has not been baptised. He purchased his own copy of the Bible a few months before the hearing and he reads it "when he has the time". He has not read the whole Bible.20 [63] The Appellant also testified that there was a period of time that he decided he did not want to get refugee protection, so he got a job where he worked on Sundays and he did not go to Church for that period.21 He does not attend any classes or other activities at Church because he believes praying at home and attendance at a Sunday service when he has the time "is enough".22 [64] The Appellant provided a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Toronto23 and one photograph of what appears to be him attending a church service.24 The letter is very brief. It simply states that the Appellant first attended the Church on November 12, 2017 and, although he joined a Sunday School course, he did not complete it "due to his irregular attendance." [65] The letter and photo do not establish that the Appellant's limited activity in Canada has come, or will come, to the attention of the authorities in China. I have already determined that the PSB summons is not genuine, so there is insufficient credible evidence that the PSB are interested in the Appellant. [66] The Appellant has had very limited involvement in religious activities in Canada. XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as the Appellant himself, confirmed that his attendance at the Church has been irregular. He was not involved in any other activities. The Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the authorities currently have any knowledge of his limited practice in Canada or, more importantly in a forward-looking assessment of risk, that they will have that knowledge in the future. No evidence of this was presented. [67] I have determined that the Appellant is not a genuine Christian of the Shouter denomination either in China or in Canada. I also find that the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's activities have come, or will come, to the attention of the Chinse authorities. Therefore, there is an insufficient basis for the sur place claim. CONCLUSION [68] Given my finding about the genuineness of the Appellant's beliefs, along with the lack of any credible evidence that the Chinese authorities are aware of, or will become aware of, his very limited religious activity in Canada, I am not satisfied that there is anything more than a mere possibility of persecution of the Appellant in China. I am also not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be subjected to a risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or danger of torture in China. [69] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Karen Wallace Karen Wallace July 28, 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4 at pp. 157-163. 3 Mobile Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202. 4 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 0:58:10. 5 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 1:25. 6 Ibid. 7 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 0:35:30. 8 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 0:50:20. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4 at p. 93. 10 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 1:16. 11 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 1:01. 12 Qi v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2020 FC 400 at para 18. The jurisprudence of this Court suggests there is a "very low standard on refugee claimants to demonstrate religious knowledge as a requirement for proving religious identity"...Nevertheless, the RPD is entitled to probe whether a claimant's story is credible by asking questions about the basic tenets of his or her faith. The RPD may choose to disbelieve a claimant whose knowledge does not correspond to the duration and depth of his or her religious activities. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5 at pp. 185-186. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (April 30, 2018), item # 9.10 and 9.3. 15 Jiang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1064. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (April 30, 2018), item # 3.22. 17 Jiang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1064. 18 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 0:55:25. 19 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 0:57:20. 20 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 1:01. 21 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 1:11. 22 RPD Hearing Recording, August 14, 2018, at 1:06. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7 at p. 220. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5 at p. 187. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-25196 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