TB8-15956

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-15956 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 August 11, 2020 Date de la décision Panel T. Cheung Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jacqueline M Lewis 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] This appeal is allowed. The Appellant, XXXX XXXX, a citizen of China, appealed the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting the Appellant's claim for refugee protection against religious persecution. [2] The Appellant claimed he joined an illegal Christian house church in China which was raided by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) on XXXX XXXX, 2017. Thirty members of the church, including the Appellant, were taken to the police station where the Appellant was detained overnight. The Appellant claimed he was interrogated and mistreated by the police. The PSB warned him to cease his involvement in the illegal church, failing which he would face arrest again. A few days after his release, the Appellant distributed religious flyers. The PSB seized his temporary resident card when he attempted to renew it. The PSB refused to renew the residency permit due to his involvement in the illegal house church. The Appellant left China on XXXX XXXX, 2017 with the help of a smuggler who travelled with him from Guangzhou City to Hong Kong to Canada. RPD Reasons and Decision [3] The RPD found it was not credible that the Appellant was wanted by the PSB for his religious activities, if he was able to exit China using his own passport.1 The RPD cited the Jurisprudential Guide (JG) as part of its analysis of the Appellant's exit from China.2 The unobstructed exit from China undermined the Appellant's general credibility to the extent that the RPD disbelieved the Appellant is a genuine believer of Christianity.3 The RPD also rejected the sur place claim, on the basis that the Appellant's religious activities in Canada had not come to the attention of the Chinese authorities, and the documentary evidence does not overcome the cumulative negative credibility findings.4 Appellant's arguments [4] Of all the submissions made by the Appellant, the following arguments are determinative of the outcome of the appeal: * The RPD erred in impugning the Appellant's credibility on the basis of a religious knowledge test that conflated the level of theological knowledge with a lack of sincerity of belief; and, * The RPD erred in assessing credibility based on the Appellant's ability to exit China. DECISION [5] No new evidence was submitted at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) appeal, and no request was made for a RAD hearing. [6] The appeal is allowed. The Appellant is a Convention refugee. ISSUE AND ANALYSIS [7] The determinative issues in this appeal are whether the Appellant has a genuine religious profile, and whether the Appellant will face religious persecution upon his return to China. Ability to exit China is not determinative of credibility [8] Although the Appellant's ability to exit China is not a determinative issue, I independently reviewed the evidence related to this issue, because the RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the unobstructed exit from China, and this negative credibility finding impacted the analysis of the genuineness of the Appellant's religious profile.5 [9] I agree with the Appellant's argument that the RPD neglected to meaningfully consider the evidence that the Appellant was assisted by a smuggler.6 The RPD acknowledged that corruption is systemic in China and regulations are not always applied consistently. The RPD acknowledged the Appellant's testimony that the smuggler was informed that the Appellant was wanted by the PSB, the smuggler had connections in the PSB, and the smuggler had guaranteed the Appellant's safe exit out of China through the bribing of customs officers.7 [10] Given the RPD's acknowledgment of the existence of systemic corruption in China and the inconsistent application of regulations,8 the RPD should have explained why it did not accept or give more weight to the testimony that the smuggler assured the Appellant that he had the connections to bribe customs officers to bypass exit controls.9 [11] The RPD relied on the JG, which has since been revoked as of June 28, 2019. Findings related to China's exit controls are driven by the facts of each case.10 The RAD's independent assessment of the objective evidence reveals that the existence of the Golden Shield and Policenet, the national computer network for policing, is not conclusive evidence that the Appellant would be prevented from exiting the airport, if he used a smuggler to circumvent security measures.11 [12] According to the objective country evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) at the time of the Appellant's exit from China in 2017, 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.12 There are documented cases of travellers evading border security controls using fraudulent means.13 Chinese secrecy laws make it extraordinarily difficult to obtain accurate information on exit controls at Chinese airports and information-sharing between security networks in China.14 [13] There is a basic rule in Canadian law that documents purported to be issued by a foreign government are presumed to be valid and are accepted as evidence of their content unless there is some valid reason to doubt their authenticity.15 The documentary evidence includes a Penalty Decision by the PSB stating that the Appellant was apprehended at the scene and investigated in XXXX 2017 for being involved in illegal church activities.16 In light of the foregoing objective evidence related to systemic corruption, I find the Appellant's exit from China does not rebut the presumption of the authenticity of the Penalty Decision issued by the PSB. [14] Therefore, the Appellant's exit from China using his own passport does not refute the claim that he was detained by the PSB and warned against illegal religious activities. For this reason, the RAD overturns the RPD finding that the Appellant is not of interest to the PSB.17 It follows that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference against the Appellant's general credibility based on his ability to exit China using his own passport. Genuineness of the Appellant's religious profile [15] The RPD had the difficult task of assessing the claimant's sincerity of religious belief. The RPD's finding that his religious belief is not genuine was erroneously tainted by the negative general credibility finding based on the exit from China analysis.18 [16] I agree with the Appellant's argument that the RPD erroneously engaged in testing the Appellant's religious knowledge rather than examine the sincerity of his religious belief. The RPD erroneously held the Appellant to an unreasonably high standard of religious knowledge. In doing so, the RPD conflated imperfections in the Appellant's theological knowledge with a lack of sincerity of religious belief.19 [17] The jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Canada provides established principles to guide in the assessment of the sincerity of belief: a. An inquiry into religious beliefs must be approached with caution because of the subjective and personal nature of such beliefs. Sincerity of belief implies an honesty of belief. Such an inquiry is a question of fact.20 b. The Board should not adopt an unrealistically high standard of knowledge or focus on a few points of error or misunderstanding that amount to a microscopic analysis.21 c. The Board should consider the claimant's education, and not fault a poorly-educated claimant for being unable to identify a passage dealing with a particular ceremony or ritual in the claimant's holy book.22 d. The actions of claimants from diverse cultures may appear implausible when judged from Canadian standards, but might be plausible in the claimant's milieu.23 e. Be mindful that the claimant may be "struggling to understand and be understood through an interpreter".24 [18] As the sincerity of religious belief is subjective and personal in nature, I approach the assessment by consideration of the following factors. These factors are non-exhaustive and not all of the factors need to be present for a positive finding of sincerity of belief: a. Is there credible testimony and corroborating documentary evidence to prove the life circumstances that led to the adoption of the religious belief, and to prove how the religion has impacted the person's life? b. Does the claimant demonstrate a baseline knowledge of the foundational tenets of the religion that is documented in the objective evidence? An assessment of religious knowledge must be approached with caution to avoid a microscopic focus on minute details. The testing of trivia should be avoided in the assessment of religious knowledge. Rather, knowledge should be assessed against a baseline of tenets that most believers in the religion would know according to the objective documentary evidence. An error in the expression of religious knowledge is not necessarily fatal to the sincerity of belief. c. Does the person demonstrate sincerity in the practice of the religion that is within the norms of the religious practice as indicated in the objective evidence? The genuineness of religious practice may support a finding that the religious knowledge is genuinely acquired, and not from memorization for the purpose of the refugee claim. d. The assessment of religious knowledge and religious practice should take into consideration the claimant's country of origin, cultural background, education level, life experience, and the transmitting of testimony through an interpreter. [19] Having independently assessed the evidence, including the testimony, I find the Appellant has a genuine religious profile. The RPD's questions thoroughly covered the following material considerations to determine whether or not the Appellant exhibited a sincerity of belief: * the circumstances that led to the adoption of the religious belief;25 * changes to the Appellant's life after becoming religious;26 * the Appellant's understanding of God and what makes him a strong believer;27 * the fulfillment of requirements prior to baptism;28 and, * a description of the baptism ceremony.29 [20] In response to the RPD's questions, the Appellant gave detailed testimony in a spontaneous manner. The Appellant's testimony was credible in addressing the above considerations to establish the sincerity of his belief. [21] The Appellant gave detailed testimony that the death of his friend and business associate caused him immense guilt. He dealt with this guilt and depression by confiding in the friend who introduced him to the Christian house church.30 The Cremation Certificate was submitted as documentary evidence to corroborate the friend's death.31 [22] The Appellant gave details that he had no prior experience with religion and that he was afraid to attend an illegal church, so his friend persuaded him to first pray at home and to put his faith in God. His friend taught him how to pray. After one month of praying for himself and for his deceased friend and family, the Appellant felt relieved.32 [23] The Appellant listed the reasons why he decided to attend the house church despite the risks of engaging in illegal religious activity: after a month of praying, he felt saved and his sorrow was soothed; he felt God gave him the courage and the intelligence to better his life; his friend told him that people praying together in a church produces more tangible effects than praying alone; and, precautions are taken to ensure the participants of the church are safe from the authorities.33 [24] The Appellant gave detailed and credible testimony on the course of events when the church was raided. The Appellant and other members were detained overnight and interrogated by the police. The Appellant signed two documents promising never to attend the house church again, and to appear for questioning when summoned in the future.34 The Penalty Decision by the PSB states that the Appellant was apprehended on the scene and investigated in XXXX 2017 for being involved in illegal church activities. [25] As the pastor of the house church was never released, the Appellant and the other members posted pamphlets in the park protesting religious persecution and demanded the release of the pastor.35 The next day, the Appellant was called into the police station again for questioning. The Appellant denied posting the pamphlets in the park, and he provided two witnesses to corroborate that the Appellant's time was spent with them. The Appellant testified that the witnesses were not untruthful, as the pamphlets were posted late in the evening, after he left the company of the two witnesses. The police immediately verified the alibi with the two witnesses.36 [26] The foregoing testimony and documentary evidence establishes the Appellant's claim that he started attending a Christian house church in China, and that he was sought by the police for his activities related to the illegal house church. Appellant's religious activity in Canada [27] The Appellant's testimony, and the documents acquired in Canada, namely the baptism certificate,37 the letter from the pastor,38 and the photographs,39 all constitute credible evidence to establish the Appellant's sincerity of religious belief. [28] The RPD's conclusion that the Appellant had not established his Christian identity or that he is an adherent of the Pentecostal Christian church is based on the finding that the Appellant's testimony was "rudimentary and repetitive".40 After describing the Appellant's testimony, the RPD found the Appellant failed to demonstrate a level of knowledge of Christianity that is commensurate of a person with his education level and length of exposure to the religious teachings.41 [29] The Appellant has three years of university or college education.42 He started attending a Christian house church in mid-January 2017,43 and he continued attending a church in Canada in XXXX 2017.44 He has approximately one and a half-years of exposure to the religion. [30] I find the RPD focused its assessment on the Appellant's knowledge of theology and not on the sincerity of belief. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's inability to relate the significance of water to the story of Jesus's Baptism in the Gospels, and from the Appellant's neglect in identifying one of God's laws as a Commandment.45 [31] Although the Appellant did not mention the theological significance of water used in baptism, he testified to the other significant precepts, namely, that baptism means one's death leads to eternal life; one cannot be a true Christian without baptism; and a person has not fulfilled the requirements of Christianity, if one is not baptized.46 [32] The Appellant attended a six-session course to prepare for baptism.47 Referencing the photographs of the baptism, he described being completely submerged in water.48 I find his testimony, along with the photographs of the baptism and the letter from the pastor, established a sincerity of belief. [33] The pastor of the church he attends in Canada wrote a letter confirming that the Appellant has been an active member of the church since XXXX 2017, by attending regular church services, bible study, volunteering and making donations.49 The Appellant gave credible testimony containing details of his involvement in this church in Toronto, including his interactions with the pastor who wrote the letter.50 I do not draw an adverse inference from the fact that two versions of the same letter from the same pastor with different dates were submitted, as the contact information for the pastor is provided for authentication.51 [34] I agree with the Appellant's argument that the inconsistency in the pastor's letter and the Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative as to whether the Appellant joined the house church in China in December 2016 or mid-January 2017 is likely attributed to the pastor's misunderstanding of the nuance that the Appellant was introduced to praying in December, but he decided to join the house church in January 2017.52 I find this inconsistency to be a minor discrepancy that does not diminish the credibility of the claim or of the pastor's letter. [35] The Appellant testified that another requirement of being a Christian is to follow God's will; to act according to God's rules and laws, such as to be good to one's parents and to love everyone as one loves themselves.53 The Appellant did not voluntarily distinguish which of these precepts is one of the Ten Commandments. Rather than assess the sincerity of the Appellant's belief in the precepts, the RPD focused on whether the Appellant should have identified whether one of the precepts is a Ten Commandment. The RPD did not consider that the distinction of the precept being a Commandment, or one of God's rules and laws, may have been lost in translation.54 The RPD was microscopic and held the Appellant to an unreasonably high standard of religious knowledge in drawing an adverse inference from the lack of distinction between a Commandment and God's rules and laws.55 [36] The RPD found the Appellant was overly focused on the initial motivations to join the house church in China.56 The Appellant's focus on his motivation to seek religion was in response to the RPD's question about what changes he noticed in his life after becoming religious. In addition to helping him cope initially with the guilt over the death of his friend, the Appellant testified that since he has become a believer for over a year, the religion gave him the peace and courage to deal with difficulties in life. He alluded to his friend who also found peace through religion.57 The Appellant also testified to his understanding of God being a saviour and father. He testified that he is now a strong believer in God because only those who believe in God will be saved.58 This testimony exhibits a sincerity of belief as well as knowledge. Contrary to the RPD's finding, the testimony did not focus only on the initial reasons which motivated him to join the house church. [37] For the foregoing reasons, the RAD sets aside the negative credibility finding that the Appellant's knowledge of the religion was vague, rudimentary and repetitive.59 The RAD's independent review reveals a level of sincerity in the Appellant's testimony that supports a finding that his religious belief is genuine. Objective country conditions evidence [38] The Appellant's claim of religious persecution is supported by the objective country conditions evidence. In China, only religious groups belonging to one of the five state-sanctioned patriotic religious associations are permitted to register with the government and to hold worship services.60 Participants of unsanctioned religious activity are subject to criminal and administrative penalties.61 Government authorities continue to criminally persecute and prosecute individuals who have attended churches deemed illegal, including house church Christians.62 [39] According to the 2016 report by the United Kingdom (UK) Home Office, "Country Information and Guidance China: Christians", the Chinese government issued a directive to "eradicate" unregistered churches over the course of the next decade, resulting in unregistered church members facing an increased number of arrests, fines, and church closures in 2014.63 [40] Factors that influence the treatment of house churches and members include the province or locale of the church, and the size of the congregation. Authorities are less tolerant of organized groups of larger than 20 to 30 people.64 The Appellant testified that the house church which he attended in China, that was raided by the PSB, had 30 people.65 [41] In 2018, a five-year nation-wide plan for the "Sinicization of Christianity" was launched to cultivate and implement social core values. The measures are aimed at Sinicizing Christian theology.66 The most recent NDP evidence documents incidents in 2018 of religious persecution in Henan, the Appellant's home province,67 and in Guangdong Province, where the Appellant most recently resided.68 [42] Police in Guangdong province arrested a Baptist preacher and his wife for distributing brochures about Christianity in a park.69 Police shut down a house church in Guangdong province, and dismissed more than 80 congregants, warning them against future assembly.70 [43] According to the NDP evidence, "persecution against Christianity" was most severely carried out in Henan province to further the policy of the Sinicization of Christianity. There were widespread reports of the government in Henan waging a campaign against the province's Christians by taking down crosses, demolishing churches, and erasing Christian slogans from church buildings. Officers in Henan province conducted raids on at least four Protestant churches. Police officers beat and kicked a Christian woman who was protesting the demolition of a church in Henan Province.71 Another source reported in 2018, that over 100 churches were shut down and crosses were demolished. Teachers in Henan province were asked to sign a letter pledging to hold no religious beliefs.72 [44] The foregoing country conditions support the Appellant's claim of religious persecution in China, and a forward-looking subjective fear of persecution. The Appellant testified that he would not be able to practice his religion freely in China, as he faces the fear of the PSB. He refuses to attend a state-sanctioned church because the doctrines of the state churches are political.73 [45] I accept the Appellant's argument that any meaningful restriction on the Appellant's ability to practice his re1igion as he chooses constitutes religious persecution.74 Freedom of religion, one of the grounds of protection under section 96 of IRPA, encompasses the freedom to choose one's own sect and place of worship.75 [46] Where the agent of persecution is the state, it is not necessary to inquire into the effectiveness of state protection.76 CONCLUSION [47] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) T. Cheung T. Cheung August 11, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 7, para. 14. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 8, para. 20. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 12, para. 38. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 12 to 13, para. 39 to 43. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 9, para. 22 and 23. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 124, para. 72. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 6, para. 12. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decsion, p. 8, para. 17. 9 Audio of RPD testimony, 00:57 to 1:01. 10 Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 762; Sun v. Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 387. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decsion, pp. 7 to 8, paras. 14 to 19. 12 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. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3,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. 14 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. 15 Rasheed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 587 (CanLII), para 19 to 23, citing Ramalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 7241 (FC), [1998] F.C.J. No.10 (T.D.) (QL), paragraphs 5 and 6. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Penalty Decision, Exhibit 6, pp. 378 to 379. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 12, para. 38. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 9, paras. 22 to 24; p. 11, para. 36, pp. 12 to 13, para. 38, 40 to 43. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 106 to 108, paras. 17 to 20, p. 110, para. 26. 20 Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1002 (CanLII), para. 12. 21 Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1002 (CanLII), para. 10; Dong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2010 FC 55, at para 20. 22 Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 929 (CanLII), para. 21. 23 Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1002 (CanLII), para. 11; Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FC 288, at para. 61. 24 Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 929 (CanLII), para. 22. 25 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:21 to 00:36. 26 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:17 to 1:20. 27 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:20 to 1:22. 28 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:22 to 1:24. 29 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:26 to 1:31. 30 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:21 to 00:29. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 376 to 377, Cremation Certificate. 32 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:29 to 00:32. 33 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:33 to 00:36. 34 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:36 to 00:43. 35 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:43 to 00:45. 36 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:45 to 00:50. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 384, Baptism Certificate. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 385 and Exhibit 8, p. 430, letter from pastor of church. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 389 and 390, photographs. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 10 to 11, paras. 27 to 33, 36. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, para. 35. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 37, Schedule A - Background / Declaration. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, p. 25, Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 385 and Exhibit 8, p. 430, letter from pastor of church. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 11, para. 33. 46 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:26 - 1:31. 47 Audio of RPD Tesitmony, 1:24. 48 Audio of RPD Tesitmony, 1:26 - 1:31. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 385 and Exhibit 8, p. 430, letter from pastor of church. 50 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:06 to 1:17. 51 Paxi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 905 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gsw1t>, para. 52; Kojouri v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1389 (CanLII) at paras 18-19; Huyen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 904 (CanLII), [2001] FCJ No 1267 at para 5. 51 El Bouni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 700 (CanLII). 52 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 113, para. 40 to 42. 53 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:30 to 1:32. 54 Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 929 (CanLII), para. 22. 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 11, para. 33. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 11, para. 34. 57 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:17 to 1:22. 58 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:20 to 1:22. 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 10, para. 27; p.11, para. 33. 60 National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (31 October 2019), item 12.1. China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau International Religious Freedom Report for 2018. United States. Department of State 21 June 2019, p. 1. 61 Ibid., p. 7. 62 National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (October 31, 2019), item 12.6. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR), CHN104966.E. Treatment of "ordinary" Christian house church members by the Public Security Bureau (PSB), including treatment of children of house church members (2009-2014) 10 October 2014. p. 5. 63 National Documentation Package, China (31 October 2019), item 1.8: ?Country Information and Guidance. China: Christians. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. March 2016. 64 National Documentation Package, China (31 October 2019), item 12.6: Treatment of "ordinary" Christian house church members by the Public Security Bureau (PSB), including treatment of children of house church members (2009-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 10 October 2014. CHN104966.E, p. 3. 65 Audio of RPD Testimony, 00:36 to 00:39. 66 National Documentation Package, China, 20 December 2019, item 12.3: ?2018 Annual Report: Chinese Government Persecution of Churches and Christians in Mainland China, January-December 2018. ChinaAid Association. 28 February 2019, p. 24. 67 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 357 to 361, Household Register. 68 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 37, Exhibit 1, Schedule A - Background / Declaration. 69 National Documentation Package, China, 20 December 2019, tab 12.1: ?China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau). International Religious Freedom Report for 2018. United States. Department of State. 21 June 2019. p. 16. 70 Ibid., p. 18. 71 Ibid., pp. 14, 18 to 20, 24; see also National Documentation Package, China, 20 December 2019, item 12.3: ?2018 Annual Report: Chinese Government Persecution of Churches and Christians in Mainland China, January-December 2018. ChinaAid Association. 28 February 2019. 72 National Documentation Package, China, 20 December 2019, item 12.3: ?2018 Annual Report: Chinese Government Persecution of Churches and Christians in Mainland China, January-December 2018. ChinaAid Association. 28 February 2019, pp. 26 to 40. 73 Audio of RPD Testimony, 1:33 to 1:35. 74 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, p. 120 para. 63. 75 Dong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 575 (CanLII), para. 16 and 17. 76 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Chen, 2004 FC 1403 (CanLII); Zhuravlev v. Canada (MCI), 2000 CanLII 17128 (FC), [2000] F.C.J. 507. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-15956 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