TB8-05050

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB8-05050 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 23, 2019 Date de la décision Panel M. Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Diana Gallego Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX ("the Appellant") appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD"), rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China and fears persecution on the basis of her religion as a Christian. She argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of the credibility of her allegations. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA")1, the appeal is dismissed. After conducting an independent assessment of the evidence, I agree with the RPD's credibility findings and confirm the RPD's negative determination. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant describes that she converted to Christianity in 2016, due to the influence of her close friend. She joined her friend's house church and attended regularly. In XXXX 2017, the Appellant came to Canada on a vacation. She had intended on returning to China on XXXX XXXX, 2017, however four days before her planned return date, she learned that her house church had been raided by the Public Security Bureau ("PSB"). The PSB went to the Appellant's home and conducted a search, accusing her of being involved in an illegal religion. They informed that they had already arrested three church members, including the Appellant's friend. The PSB demanded that she submit herself to them within a week. [4] After a week had passed, the PSB returned to the Appellant's home and left a summons with the Appellant's mother. As the Appellant feared being arrested in China, she initiated a claim for refugee protection in Canada. [5] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ("the Minister") intervened in the Appellant's claim based on credibility. The RPD heard the Appellant's claim on December 4, 2017 but rejected it on the basis of the Appellant's lack of credibility. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [6] The jurisprudence establishes that the Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination. Deference is owed to the RPD only where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence.2 [7] There is only one aspect of the RPD's decision on which I find that I must show some deference. The RPD commented on the damage to the Appellant's Chinese passport. The passport was brought to the RPD hearing by a Minister's representative, and therefore the RPD panel had the opportunity to examine the Appellant's passport firsthand. I have deferred to the RPD's observations about the physical appearance of the passport. [8] However, on all other findings, I see no reason to show deference to the RPD. On all other aspects of the RPD's reasons, I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at my own independent findings based on the evidence before me. MERITS OF THE APPEAL [9] The Appellant argues the following on appeal: a) That the RPD erred by basing its credibility findings on perceived implausibilities about the Appellant's travel plan; b) That the RPD relied on trivial and peripheral inconsistencies regarding the Appellant's method of payment for her travel bookings; c) That the RPD erred in its treatment of her supporting evidence. [10] These issues will each be addressed below. a) Perceived implausibilities about the Appellant's travel plan [11] The Appellant argues that the RPD's approach to assessing her credibility was flawed, as it relied on perceived implausibilities about her travel plans. I do not agree that any error arises from the RPD's analysis. [12] The Appellant alleged that she had every intention of returning to China on XXXX XXXX, 2017, but that she became a refugee sur place in Canada when the PSB raided her church and began to look for her. She maintains that when she originally arrived in Canada, her purpose of travel to Canada was purely touristic. [13] The RPD determined, however, that there were aspects of her travel that were not reasonably explained. She made no reservations with any tour group for her 19-day visit to Canada. When she arrived in Canada, she had booked only two nights of accommodation in Toronto. Despite advising Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA") officers that she intended to travel to eastern Canada and Cuba, she had no itinerary, bookings, tickets, or plans of any kind, nor proof of funds. [14] When questioned about this, the Appellant explained that she had no plans because of jetlag and her need to get accustomed to the environment. She decided to take a few days to get settled. After finishing her stay at her place of accommodations in Toronto, she rented a room in a family's house. She claimed that she had in fact booked further travel to eastern Canada after she arrived in Toronto. The RPD rejected these explanations. It found that the explanation about her jetlag was not a likely reason, and that she provided inconsistent explanations about her accommodations and post-arrival bookings. [15] The Appellant challenges these findings, arguing that the RPD relied on a stereotype of tourists. The Appellant submits that it is not implausible that a tourist in Canada would not have their entire trip planned, and that they might only make plans and bookings upon their arrival. [16] I have reviewed the hearing record and agree with the RPD's assessment of the facts. It was not simply that the RPD found these travel plans to be unusual; the RPD found that the Appellant's testimony around her accommodation and bookings was inconsistent. The "hotel" that the Appellant had initially described was in fact a house, where the Appellant stayed with a family. According to her own testimony, the Appellant stayed at this house until the beginning of XXXX. She explained that at that point, she heard that her house church was raided in China, and this caused her to start to look for another place to rent. In other words, despite her stated intention at the port-of-entry to visit different cities, and despite supposedly having later booked a tour to eastern Canada, which was scheduled to depart on XXXX XXXX, 2017, the Appellant remained in Toronto and stayed at a family's home until at least XXXX XXXX, 2017.3 This is a marked departure from the travel plans the Appellant described at the port-of-entry, and indeed from the travel itinerary she initially presented when she applied for her visa.4 [17] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant was not a genuine tourist when she arrived in Canada, and that the evidence instead favours the conclusion that she already intended to remain in Canada for an extended period of time. b) The RPD's reliance on trivial or peripheral inconsistencies regarding the Appellant's method of payment for her travel bookings [18] The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred by relying on trivial or peripheral inconsistencies regarding her method of payment for her travel bookings. I agree that the inconsistency is minor, however I am unpersuaded that this should lead to a different conclusion on the determination regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's travel plans. [19] In assessing the Appellant's travel plans, the RPD noted that the Appellant had submitted an invoice regarding her tour to eastern Canada. However, the invoice indicated that it had been paid with a debit card, while the Appellant had testified that she paid for everything in cash. [20] I agree with the Appellant that the inconsistency is relatively minor. The Appellant's method of payment for the tour truly has no bearing at all on the claim's merits, but I cannot agree with the Appellant's characterization of this finding. The RPD did not treat this as a major credibility issue going to the core of the Appellant's claim. It merely found that this was a reason to doubt the credibility of the invoice. [21] Whether or not the Appellant actually paid for a tour to eastern Canada is immaterial. In view of the fact that the Appellant was the subject of significant scrutiny upon her entry into Canada due to her lack of travel plans and bookings, I agree with the RPD's observation that such a booking could have been made simply to create an appearance of a genuine intention to travel for tourism purposes. Apart from the tour invoice, there was no evidence at all that the Appellant went anywhere in Canada apart from Toronto. [22] The Appellant seems to question the materiality of the Appellant's travel plans. The Appellant argues that the RPD's fixation on the travel plans was such that the RPD failed to engage with the central allegations in the claim. I cannot agree with this argument. The RPD noted the Appellant's testimony about her religious beliefs and her attendance at church in Canada. It stated that it had weighed and considered the evidence, including corroborating documentation. However, the RPD's findings on the genuineness of the Appellant's purpose of travel to Canada are understandable, as this issue was highly material. If the Appellant entered Canada with the pre-existing intention to remain here permanently, this would be very damaging to the credibility of her allegations, given that she claims to be a refugee sur place who had every intention of returning to China at the end of her trip. c) The RPD's treatment of the supporting evidence [23] Finally, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its treatment of her supporting evidence. I find, however, that the RPD's weighing of the evidence was correct. [24] The Appellant submitted a number of documents in support of her allegations, including a summons, a notice of arrest regarding her friend, as well as evidence of her attendance at a church in Canada. The RPD placed "limited weight" on these documents. It noted that the appearance of the documents were such that anyone with a printer could have created the corroborating documents, and that fraudulent documents were widespread in China. The RPD also noted that religious beliefs can be feigned. [25] The Appellant submits that the RPD made a "backwards credibility finding", in that the RPD had already come to conclusion about the Appellant's credibility and used its credibility findings to simply discount the rest of the Appellant's testimony and supporting evidence. In addition, the Appellants submit that the RPD failed to actually examine the supporting documents and that its only reason for discounting them was the availability of fraudulent documents in China - a finding that was not supported by the evidentiary record. [26] I do not agree with the Appellant's arguments. The reasons are clear that the RPD considered and examined the evidence. I am not satisfied that the RPD prejudged the evidence due to the other credibility issues in the case. The reasons should be read as a whole. It is not that the RPD found the Appellant to be lacking in credibility and that it then proceeded with a closed mind when viewing the rest of the evidence. [27] In addition to the issues around the Appellant's purpose of travel to Canada, the RPD found that the Appellant's credibility was undermined by the evidence around her Chinese passport. The Appellant has not challenged this finding. The Appellant's intentional tampering of her passport was one of the reasons for the Minister's intervention in the claim, and also formed a significant part of the RPD's credibility assessment. The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible about her explanation that her passport was damaged when she accidentally put it through a washing machine. According to the RPD, there were entire pages torn out neatly along the binding of the passport. Given this appearance, the RPD found it unlikely that a washing machine cycle could have caused some of the pages to be torn out in the manner alleged. The RPD found that the Appellant had purposely tampered with the passport, that she was lying about how it was damaged, and that she was likely attempting to evade scrutiny of parts of the document. The RPD drew a negative inference against the claim as a result. [28] The other credibility findings in this case are important to consider. The weight of evidence has been described as "the persuasiveness of some evidence in comparison with other evidence". It is what counts in the ultimate balancing of the evidence that tends to prove or disprove a relevant fact.5 In this case, the RPD was merely balancing the evidence before it. It considered that the Appellant had a number of supporting documents about her religion and the PSB's interest in her. However, it considered that there were few security features on the documents and that anyone with a printer could have created them. It noted the availability of fraudulent documents in China. The RPD considered that the Appellant was not a genuine tourist when she entered Canada, and that she had purposely damaged and tampered with her passport in order to hide information. Ultimately, the RPD thought it rather convenient that the PSB had raided the house church just days before the Appellant's scheduled return to China, and that when the evidence in its entirety was weighed, it was more likely than not that she had simply invented a claim of religious persecution in order to justify her continued stay in Canada. [29] As to the availability of fraudulent documentation in China, the version of the National Documentation Package for China that was entered into evidence clearly addresses how document fraud is a major problem in China. Identity documents, such as Resident ID Cards and household registers - which are much more difficult to falsify than summonses and arrest notices that are printed on plain pieces of paper - were reportedly prevalent.6 That is not to say that every document that comes from China is necessarily fraudulent or that it should follow that the Appellant's own documents must be fraudulent simply because they come from China. In my view, the RPD simply noted this as one factor among others in its weighing of the evidence. The Federal Court has found that it is not an error for the RPD to consider the availability of fraudulent documents as one of a number of factors when weighing evidence, including other credibility issues.7 On an independent assessment, I find that the supporting documentation is not persuasive in comparison with the various credibility issues. I give no weight to the documents in establishing the genuineness of the Appellant's religious activities or the PSB's interest in her in China. CONCLUSION [30] The Appellant has not demonstrated any error in the RPD's decision. On an independent assessment, I agree with the RPD's credibility assessment. The negative determination is therefore confirmed. [31] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "M. Oh" M. Oh May 23, 2019 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; see also Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-18), Diner, November 14, 2018; 2018 FC 1145. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, p. 413. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 96. 5 Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 at para 27. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (October 31, 2017), item 3.22, Response to Information Request (RIR), CHN104579.E. 7 Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1250 at para 15; see also Xu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1062 at para 4. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB8-05050