TB7-15034

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 : TB7-15034 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 10, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Linda Hart Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Phillip J.L. Trotter 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, is a citizen of China. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has not submitted new evidence in support of his appeal. He asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute its own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection or, in the alternative, refer his claim back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, and dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he began to practice Christianity in XXXX 2015 in Zhejiang province where he was attending school. He began to attend a house church in XXXX 2015. Two members of the church were arrested on XXXX XXXX, 2017 while distributing religious pamphlets. The Appellant was advised by the church leader to go into hiding. The Public Security Bureau (PSB) went to his rental abode in Zhejiang and to his parent's home in Fujian to look for him on XXXX XXXX, 2017. A summons was left for him at his parent's home on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The Appellant left China on XXXX XXXX, 2017 with the help of a smuggler. [4] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on June 21, 2017. In a decision dated July 13, 2017, the RPD rejected his claim finding that the Appellant was not credible and had not demonstrated that he was wanted by the PSB as alleged. The RPD further found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant would be able to continue his religious activities in China should he wish to do so. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD made the following errors in coming to its conclusions: a) the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility; b) the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's documents; and c) the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's freedom of religion in China. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD has applied the standard of correctness as per Huruglica. In assessing issues involving credibility of oral testimony, the RAD may apply the RAD modified standard of reasonableness in those situations where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in making a determination as per the decision in X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Credibility Delay in Claiming [7] The RPD found that the Appellant's delay in making a refugee claim in Canada detracted from his overall credibility given that he was without valid and subsisting status in Canada; therefore risking detention by Canadian authorities. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he was told by the smuggler that if he did make a refugee claim as soon as he reached Canada he could face deportation to China. The RPD found that it did not make sense that the Appellant would travel across the world for his safety only to fear deportation if he made a refugee claim. [8] The Appellant argues that the RPD misunderstood his explanation for the delay and that he was saying that he had been told by the smuggler that it was better to claim inland than at the border, because the border can turn back refugees and deny them the chance to claim. He submits that this is a plausible explanation as some refugees are turned back at the border and refused the right to make a claim. The Appellant argues while a claimant can be refused the right to claim even if he applies inland, it is plausible that the smuggler was speaking based on his own experience, rather than a knowledge of Canadian refugee law. He submits that it is entirely plausible that the smuggler advised him to make his claim inland. [9] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The RAD finds, after its own assessment of the evidence, that the RPD did not err in taking a negative credibility inference from the three month delay in claiming refugee protection in Canada. [10] The RAD notes that the Appellant stated at the hearing that he began the process of making a refugee claim only after he got settled in Canada and that he was provided with information by individuals from his church and his landlord. The RAD has considered that the Appellant was in Canada illegally, as he had arrived in this country using a fraudulently obtained student visa and was not attending school. Further, the Appellant testified at the hearing that he came to Canada because Canada has religious freedom. The RAD finds that given his university education and his particular situation, it is reasonable to expect that he would have the motivation and ability to research refugee protection on his own once he arrived in Canada, instead of waiting until information presented itself from individuals he met in Canada who did not necessarily have any expertise in refugee law. [11] The RAD agrees with the RPD that his explanation for delaying in making a refugee claim in Canada is not reasonable. The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in rejecting his explanation and drawing a negative credibility inference from the delay. Exit [12] The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible in his assertion that he is wanted by the authorities in China because of his Christian beliefs given that he left China without incident. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he was able to leave China despite being wanted by the PSB because he had used the services of a smuggler who probably bribed people in the airport. The RPD reviewed the documentary evidence regarding the Golden Shield, airport procedures, facial recognition technology and advanced passenger information and concluded that the Appellant would not have been able to bypass all of the security measures if he was wanted by the authorities. [13] The Appellant argues that the documentary evidence and case law reveal that it is completely possible to exit China with a valid passport, even if wanted by the PSB, with the help of a smuggler who bribed border officials. He submits that documentary evidence reveals that corruption and bribery are common in China. He submits that the RPD admitted that it was possible that the smuggler could have overcome all of the measures put into place by Chinese authorities and therefore the member was not entitled to make a plausibility finding regarding exit. The Appellant submits that the Federal Court has held in a number of cases that it is not implausible for a person to leave China on his or her own genuine passport with the assistance of a smuggler who would bribe the appropriate person. [14] The RAD has reviewed the record and notes that the Appellant travelled by airplane from XXXX airport to XXXX XXXX and then on to Canada.1 The RAD has considered the documentary evidence which notes that PSB investigations require meticulous documentation of offenders, and that the PSB specifically requires documentation, reporting, and monitoring of potential offenders. It is additionally noted that individuals' information is stored and classified under one of five security and political threat levels within a national dynamic stability control maintenance database, which is accessible by all officers within China's security apparatus.2 It is clear from the Appellant's evidence in the BOC and testimony that the PSB was pursuing the Appellant and that two of his fellow church members had already been arrested. Additionally, a summons was allegedly issued for him. It is therefore reasonable to expect that his information would have been entered into the database. The RAD has additionally considered the information that the PSB continued to search for the Appellant. The RAD finds on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant would have been wanted by the authorities when he exited China given his particular circumstances. [15] The RAD further notes from the documentary evidence that Article 10 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law states that Chinese citizens who travel between the Mainland and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Region shall apply for exit/entry permits in accordance with the law.3 Freedom House indicates that "periodic denials of entry to democracy activists, Falun Gong practitioners, and others have raised suspicions that the government XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is enforcing a Beijing-imposed political blacklist..."4 Further, according to Article 89 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law, exit refers to leaving the Chinese mainland for other countries or regions, for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Region or the Macao Special Administrative Region, or for Taiwan Region. [16] The RAD has reviewed the documentary evidence which shows that there is Chinese government control regarding entry into XXXX XXXX and that there is a history of individuals being denied entry from mainland China. The RAD finds on a balance probabilities that if the Appellant was indeed wanted by Chinese authorities, this would have been flagged when he exited mainland China and XXXX XXXX and when he entered XXXX XXXX with his passport or entry permit. [17] The RAD has considered that the Appellant has alleged that he used the services of a smuggler and that the smuggler "probably bribed people at the airport". The RAD notes that overall, the Appellant provided very little detail regarding what specifically the smuggler did for him to enable him to leave mainland China, enter XXXX XXXX and fly overseas from the XXXX XXXX airport. His passport has not been provided as he stated that the smuggler retained it. The RAD finds, after conducting its own analysis, that there is insufficient evidence on the record to support any allegation that the Appellant was able to leave China despite being wanted by the PSB because he used the services of a smuggler. [18] The RAD has considered that when he went to XXXX XXXX, the Appellant, according to the exit and entry laws, was leaving mainland China and was subject to exit controls and procedures. The RAD notes that the documentary evidence reveals that the Chinese government has a national computer network known as the Golden Shield Project,5 and the PSB has access to a national policing database, which includes information about criminal fugitives and information on passports and exit and entry. The Golden Shield incorporates extensive tracking and control mechanisms including facial recognition surveillance technology. [19] The RAD also notes that the Exit and Entry Administration Law of China, which came into force on July 1, 2013, states that Chinese citizens who exit or enter China shall submit their exit/entry documents, such as passports or other travel documents, to the exit/entry border inspection authorities for examination, go through the prescribed formalities, and may exit or enter upon examination and approval.6 [20] The documentary evidence states that Chinese citizens are not allowed to exit China if they are suspects or defendants in criminal cases. The same article7 states that: 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. If the control port is not within the same province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the central government, the public security organ in the relevant province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the central government shall be contacted for the handle control formalities. Under emergency situations, if necessary, may first have the border control prevent departure and complete control formalities later. An undated article on the website of the Ministry of Public Security, entitled "Deepening the Implementation of the 'Golden Shield' Project," indicates that all police units nationwide have access to eight public security databases, including the "National Basic Population Information Database" (China n.d.). Also accessible through the databases is information on household registration [hukou], border exit and entry, road traffic, and criminal investigations (ibid.).8 [21] In addition, the representative of the Laogai Research Foundation stated that the Golden Shield incorporates extensive tracking and control mechanisms such as real-name online registration requirements, GPS monitoring, and facial recognition surveillance technology in a multi-pronged approach to identify potentially disruptive individuals. Policenet, a component of the Golden Shield, stores a wealth of information on Chinese citizens and connects the various agencies and levels of command within the public security apparatus. This integrated system enables Chinese public security forces to effectively target and neutralize political dissidents.9 [22] The Appellant has alleged he left China from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX airports. According to the NDP, facial recognition technology is being used at Chinese airports.10 [23] As previously noted, the Appellant alleged that the smuggler helped him to leave China. It is unclear from his evidence how he enabled him to leave the country. However, even if a bribe was paid, it does not account for the additional level of screening conducted by the airline at the gate and for how the Appellant was able to by-pass the covert facial recognition system. It also does not account for the advanced passenger information that is submitted to Chinese authorities by the airline prior to going through exit immigration inspection procedures.11 [24] The RAD is aware that there is evidence in the record which establishes that there is corruption in China. The RAD has considered the comprehensiveness of the Australian background paper12 on this subject, and notes that there is no mention in the paper, and insufficient objective evidence elsewhere in the objective evidence, that corruption extends to the airport security apparatus. The evidence states that corrupt practices are evident in many areas of Chinese society but most sources agree that corruption problems are concentrated in sectors with extensive state involvement, such as construction, land use, infrastructure, property development and banking. Former Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said in March 2012 that corruption tends to occur frequently in departments that possess great power and in areas where the management of funds is centralised.13 [25] A closer assessment of the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal Background paper reveals: 3. MAJOR AREAS OF OFFICIAL CORRUPTION Official corruption in China is particularly severe in areas with significant state involvement - for example, the construction, mining and real estate sectors. Within the state apparatus, corruption is a widespread and costly problem at the local level. Business and organised crime engage in corrupt activity with local government officials, the judiciary and the police. In an example of such collusion, recent corruption scandals have uncovered a number of cases where current and former government, CCP, security and state-owned enterprise officials have used forged and false identity and hukou documents, often with assistance from other state officials including police, to amass large property portfolios.... 3.2. Business and state-owned enterprise Corruption permeates nearly all types and levels of industry in China - it is most commonly reported in the mining sector, the construction sector, banking and finance, land expropriation cases and in areas which attract migrant workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation. [26] The RAD finds that the Appellant's allegation that he was able to exit China despite all the security measures in place because the smuggler helped is not credible. [27] The RAD finds that there are a number of Federal Court decisions which support the RAD's finding in this regard. In particular the RAD notes that the Refugee Appeal Division's decision of X (Re), 2015 CanLII 72857 (CA IRB), addresses similar circumstances: API [advance passenger information] requirements which have been in effect for years, in conjunction with the highly effective Golden Shield program, makes it, on a balance of probabilities, unlikely a wanted person could depart China from an international airport using a passport with his own name, date of birth, and photograph in it. The likelihood of bribing so many people as would be involved in a person's departure is miniscule. From the person selling the ticket, to the check in counter, to the security checkpoint, the customs and immigration people onto the person who checks the Boarding pass, all of these people may be randomly in place and make it nearly impossible for anyone to know who to bribe at what point. It is simply implausible that a wanted man will escape China on his own legitimate documents.14 [28] This finding is also supported by Federal Court decisions Zeng, Su, and Cao,15 in which the Federal Court has supported findings that traveling unimpeded through Chinese exit controls is inconsistent with being wanted by Chinese authorities. The RAD finds that the objective evidence concerning the Golden Shield and other border controls in place in China is compelling and convincing. While it might be possible for a smuggler to bypass some of the security controls, the RAD finds that, based on the evidence in the record, it is highly unlikely that the Appellant could have bypassed all of the security controls in place. [29] After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD finds the Appellant's evidence that he was able to exit China using his own passport or permit is inconsistent with the documentary evidence in the record. The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in its finding that the Appellant was able to leave China using his genuine passport because he was not wanted by the authorities. The RAD agrees with the RPD this negatively impacts the credibility of his allegations that he is wanted by the authorities in China. Documents [30] The RPD afforded little weight to the summons and the letter of the termination of employment,16 given the Appellant's ability to leave China without incident. The RPD gave no weight to the document indicating that the pastor of his house church had been arrested for similar reasons.17 The RPD noted consistent reports of document fraud in China and had concerns with the validity and genuineness of these documents given that the Appellant had demonstrated an ability to obtain false documents when applying for his Canadian visa. [31] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in dismissing the summons and notice of dismissal from employment as fraudulent, as this finding was based primarily on the determinative finding that he could not be wanted by the PSB if he fled China with a valid passport, and his use of fraudulent documents in the past. The Appellant submits that there is a presumption of authenticity afforded to foreign documents and that the RPD erred by not analysing the original documents to see if they appeared genuine as it has an obligation to engage in an independent assessment of relevant documents regardless of the availability of fraudulent documents and any prior credibility findings. [32] The RAD finds that the Appellant's argument has merit in regard to the RPD's failure to independently assess each document given that the summons and termination letter go to the heart of the claim. However, the RAD is able to review these documents. Summons [33] After its own review and assessment, the RAD finds that there are other grounds for the RAD to find that the summons cannot be relied upon. The RAD notes that the summons tendered by the Appellant is a non-coercive investigative summonses issued under the authority of Article 82 of the Public Security and Administrative Punishment Law (PSAPL) and which required the Appellant to appear for interrogation. The RAD notes that Article 82 specifically states that anyone who evades a summons can receive a compulsory summons.18 The RAD notes, however, that the Appellant has not tendered a coercive summons, even though he failed to report as required. Given the Appellant's allegation that that the PSB is continuing to look for him in China, the RAD finds it reasonable to expect that, if a coercive summons had been issued, his family would have informed him. [34] The RAD finds that, if the Appellant's allegations are true that the Chinese authorities have been pursuing him since he left China and have sought him out at his parents', sister's and aunts' and uncles' homes, it is reasonable that a coercive summonses would have been issued for him. The RAD finds that the absence of a compulsory summonses, when it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would have been issued such a summons, undermines the genuineness of the summons he did tender. The RAD finds that the summons and the Appellant's allegations and testimony are inconsistent with the objective evidence in the record with regard to the provisions of the PSAPL. [35] The RAD further notes that in the NDP documentation,19 the following is stated: "there has been no variation in the format of summonses and subpoenas since 2003". The documentation goes on to quote that such forms are supposed to be used throughout the country and that "regional variations are not meant to exist". Observing the summons submitted by the Appellants and comparing it to the samples in the NDP documentation,20 the RAD finds that the structure and format of the summons is not consistent with the documentation. The identifier prior to the name of the individual concerned (top left) is missing. The structure of the second and third line are inconsistent with the NDP documentation - specifically the caricature before a number 30 is on the second line, not the third. The spacing for the bottom three lines of the document is inconsistent with the documentation provided in the NDP. The RAD takes a negative inference from these differences when comparing the summons submitted by the Appellant and the sample provided in the NDP documentation. [36] The RAD also notes that fraudulent documents, even of some complexity, are widespread in China.21 [37] The RAD finds on a balance probabilities that the summons is not a genuine document considering the above noted differences when compared to the sample contained in the documentary evidence; the lack of a coercive summons when it is reasonable to expect one; that fraudulent documents are readily available in China; and the Appellant's ability to leave China despite allegedly having had a summons issued for him.22 [38] The RAD further finds that, in tendering fraudulent documents in support of his claim, the Appellant has undermined his general credibility and the credibility of the other documents he has submitted in this claim. The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in rejecting the summons. Dismissal letter [39] The RAD finds that no weight can be assigned to this letter given that it refers to having received a notice from the PSB accusing the Appellant of violating the law by being involved in underground religious activities. The RAD has found the summons allegedly issued by the PSB to be a fraudulent document, and finds this document also to be fraudulent. The RAD notes that submitting a false or irregular document - in this case the summons - may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by the Appellant, especially when they are interrelated,23 and on the overall credibility of an Appellant.24 Summary [40] The RAD has considered the above noted findings regarding the Appellant's credibility and the veracity of his documents. The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant had not established on a balance of probabilities the central element of his claim - that he is wanted by the authorities for house church activities. Practice of Christianity in China [41] The RPD found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant is a practising Christian and should he wish to practice Christianity upon his return to China, there are many congregations he could attend without attracting the interest of the authorities. The RPD noted that the documentary evidence indicates that the vast majority of Christians in China are able to freely practice their faith. The RPD considered the Internet news article regarding the Appellant's purported pastor being arrested in Zhejiang province which indicated that the real reason for his arrest was likely because of his contact with US consulate officials in Shanghai. The RPD found that the Appellant was an ordinary congregant, which did not establish his risk for having religious beliefs in China, as the documentary evidence indicates that millions of Christians worshiping in unregistered churches are allowed to meet and express their faith as they wish to do. The RPD further noted that the Appellant was born in Fujian province and also has a residence permit for Zhejiang province. [42] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding that he may practice freely in a patriotic church. He submits that the RPD failed to consider his religious convictions and that he is not likely to join a church sanctioned by the government, which he sees as a persecutor of his beloved church. [43] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in ignoring country condition evidence on record which indicates that religious rights and human rights are under serious threat in China. He submits that the RPD was selective in its reading of the evidence and that it is an error to emphasize evidence that supports a finding while disregarding evidence that contradicts our challenges of finding. [44] The Appellant argues that the RPD finding that he is not at risk because he was a simple congregant disregarded his evidence that he engaged in proselytizing by distributing pamphlets to non-Christians. [45] The RAD has reviewed the record and agrees with the RPD that the Appellant would be able to practice his faith in a congregation of his choosing should he return to China. The RAD has considered the above noted findings and finds that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that he has any sort of elevated Christian profile other than that of a regular congregant as evidenced by his activities in Canada. He has provided a letter from the pastor of his Canadian church25 which notes only that he has an interest in studying Bible class, attends Sunday service regularly, has joined a volunteer program, and donates money. There is no credible evidence on the record that the Appellant has engaged in proselytizing, given the information in the letter and the earlier credibility findings regarding his church activities in China. [46] The RAD has considered whether there is a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted if he returns to China and chooses to practice his faith in an unregistered church. The RAD is guided by the country condition documents in evidence. The Appellant is from Fujian Province; the RAD notes that there is limited recent evidence of incidents of persecution involving house church Christians in Fujian Province. Although the Appellant has resided in Zhejiang province, the RAD notes from the resident permit document he submitted26 that this was a temporary residence extending only until XXXX 2017 and that he has not established that he is wanted by the authorities for his Christian activities in that province on a balance of probabilities. His household registration document confirms that he is a permanent resident of Fujian province. The RAD has therefore considered both the conditions for Christians in China and particularly in Fujian. [47] The RAD notes that the U.S. Department of State has designated China one of ten countries of particular concern in regard to religious freedom.27 The U.S. government estimates the total population at 1.4 billion (July 2015 estimate). In its report to the UN Human Rights Council during China's Universal Periodic Review in October 2013, the government stated there were more than 100 million religious believers, 360,000 clergy, 140,000 places of worship, and 5,500 religious groups... Many experts believe official estimates grossly understate numbers of religious adherents, though unofficial estimates vary widely.28 [48] The RAD notes from the documentary evidence that there are approximately 50 to 90 million Protestants in China, more of whom worship at unregistered churches than official churches. Unregistered groups are not equated with groups that have been declared evil cults. Individuals belonging to cults are ruthlessly pursued. In parts of the country unregistered groups have grown rapidly and the authorities do not pressure them to register. There are tens of thousands of unregistered churches in China, most of which carry out their business with little if any trouble from the local authorities. In some parts of the country authorities tacitly approve the activities of unregistered church groups and do not interfere with them. The RAD finds that the preponderance of evidence indicates that Christians can practise their faith in a lawful church and that authorities generally do not concern themselves with small house church gatherings.29 [49] The UK Home Office in its documentation on religious freedom in China notes at section 3.1.1.: In general the treatment faced by Christians in China, including those from unregistered churches, is unlikely to amount to persecution. Caselaw from early 2014 established that in general, the risk of persecution for Christians expressing and living their faith in China is very low.30 [50] The RAD also notes that the documentary evidence concerning the treatment of house Christians is mixed and that there are examples of authorities harassing congregants. [51] The RAD finds the recent (March 2016) UK Home Office document31 provides a comprehensive review of the situation for Christians in China. Christianity is a fast-growing phenomenon in China, and notwithstanding a variety of official and social sanctions against it, the majority of Christians are able to worship and practice without facing serious difficulties. Millions of Chinese Christians manifest their beliefs openly, and senior government officials have praised religious communities' positive role in society, and urged approved religious groups to promote 'economic and social development' and 'socialist principles'.... There has been a rapid growth in the number of Christians in China, both in the three State-registered churches and the unregistered or 'house' churches. Individuals move freely between State-registered churches and the unregistered churches, according to their preferences as to worship.... The US Department of State (USSD) 2014 International Religious Freedom Report, released 14 October 2015, noted: The constitution states citizens have "freedom of religious belief," but limits protections for religious practice to "normal religious activities." The constitution does not define "normal." The constitution provides for the right to hold or not hold a religious belief and states that state organs, public organizations, and individuals may not discriminate against citizens "who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion." The law does not allow for legal action to be taken against the government on the basis of the religious freedom protections afforded by the constitution. Criminal law allows the state to sentence government officials to up to two years in prison if they violate a citizen's religious freedom. There were no reported cases of such prosecutions during the year [2014].... Only religious groups belonging to one of the five state-sanctioned "patriotic religious associations" (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) are permitted to register with the government and legally hold worship services. Other religious groups, such as Protestant groups unaffiliated with the official patriotic religious association or Catholics professing loyalty to the Vatican, are not permitted to register as legal entities. [52] The RAD notes that the documentary evidence indicates there is uneven regulation of unregistered churches, with some churches meeting openly and regularly with large memberships. The RAD further finds that the documentary evidence confirms that the government is generally tolerant of groups that meet in homes or in small groups, but it is suspicious of religious organisations with foreign ties, memberships that grow quickly, or whose leadership becomes too popular. Proselytizing in public or meeting in unregistered places of worship is not permitted...Religious groups independent of the five official government patriotic religious associations have difficulty obtaining any other legal status and are vulnerable to coercive and punitive action by SARA, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), and other party or government security organs. All religious organizations are required to register with SARA [the State Administration for Religious Affairs] or its provincial and local offices. Registered religious organizations are allowed to possess property, publish approved materials, train staff, and collect donations. According to regulations, religious organizations must submit information about the organization's historical background, doctrines, key publications, minimum funding requirements, and a government sponsor. Due to the difficulty of fulfilling these requirements, many religious organizations either remain unregistered or register as commercial enterprises. In addition to the five nationally recognized religions, local governments have legalized certain religious communities and practices, such as Orthodox Christianity in Xinjiang, Heilongjiang, Zhejiang, and Guangdong provinces.... SARA has stated through a policy posted on its website that family and friends have the right to meet at home for worship, including prayer and Bible study, without registering with the government.32 [53] The RAD notes that members of unregistered Protestant groups that the government identifies as 'evil cults' appear to be the most vulnerable to detention, arrest and harassment. [54] 'Certain religious or spiritual groups are banned by law. The criminal law defines banned groups as "evil cults," and those belonging to them can be sentenced to prison. A judicial explanation states this term refers to: "those illegal groups that have been found using religions, 'qigong' [a traditional Chinese exercise discipline], or other things as a camouflage, deifying their leading members, recruiting and controlling their members, and deceiving people by molding and spreading superstitious ideas, and endangering society." There are no published criteria for determining, or procedures for challenging, such a designation. The government maintains a ban on the Guanyin Method Sect (Guanyin Famen or the Way of the Goddess of Mercy), Zhong Gong (a 'qigong' exercise discipline), and Falun Gong. The government also considers several Christian groups to be "evil cults," including the Shouters, Eastern Lightning, Society of Disciples (Mentu Hui), Full Scope Church, Spirit Sect, New Testament Church, Three Grades of Servants (or San Ban Pu Ren), Association of Disciples, Lord God Sect, Established King Church, Unification Church, Family of Love, and South China Church.33 [55] The RAD notes that the UK Home Office document addresses a situation that garnered a great deal of media attention and the implication that his may be an indicator of a new nationwide wave of discrimination against Christians. It discusses the situation as it appears in the US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2015 Annual Report, released April 30, 2015: 'In a striking development, at least 400 churches were torn down or had crosses forcibly removed and/or demolished in 2014, a notable increase over previous years. Most of these incidents occurred in Zhejiang Province and included both underground and state-sanctioned churches, though incidents were reported in other places as well.34 [56] A World Watch Monitor report of September 22, 2015, 'Analysis: What to make of China's demolition of crosses', further addresses the Central Government's role in this situation. 'Some Christians fear that the Chinese central government is testing how Christians in Zhejiang respond to this pressure. They are concerned that this is an early stage of a new, nationwide wave of discrimination against Christians. Other Christians disagree. While it's true that a small number of "house churches" were closed down recently, most church leaders outside Zhejiang don't report any difference in government attitude towards them. Meetings and gatherings for training have continued as usual. There's no evidence that points to an increase in discrimination on a national level.35 [57] The RAD, having reviewed the documentation, finds that this increase in anti-Christian sentiment, as much as it is disturbing, is not widespread and there appears to be no increase in discrimination on a national level. [58] The RAD has considered the situation for Christians in the Appellant's home province of Fujian. The RAD notes that although there is mention in the ChinaAid Report36 that there was a forced demolition of a church in Fujian, few details are provided in the report and it is unclear as to the treatment of the congregants. The RAD finds that it cannot put sufficient weight on this one incident as evidence of persecution of Christians in Fujian province given that details are not provided, and because there is no indication in any of the other documentation that reports on persecution of Christians in China to corroborate this incident. [59] The RAD has reviewed the recent documentary evidence contained in the NDP and in the disclosure provided by the Appellant's counsel and finds that, other than the demolition already noted, there were no incidents of persecution of Christians in Fujian province. The documentary evidence indicates that the church in Fujian is strong, and has a thriving and rapidly growing Christian community. Official religious policy has been applied liberally in Fujian. Further, Fujian seems fairly tolerant of unregistered believers.37 [60] The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that if there were recent arrests or incidents of persecution of Christians in Fujian province, there would be some documentation by reliable sources. The RAD has considered that the recent documentary evidence regarding Protestant Christians in Fujian Province reveals only the demolition noted earlier. The RAD has further considered the Appellant's risk of persecution in light of the number of Christians practicing in China in registered and unregistered churches and finds it is less than a serious possibility. The number of Christians in Fujian in 2011 was 5,360,810, which is 14.31 percent of the population of the province. The same source reports that there are 3,453,069 Protestants and 1,907,741 Catholics. 38 [61] The RAD has considered the letter from the Appellant's pastor and notes that the information contained in that letter about the situation for Christians in China is brief and not specific to Fujian province. The RAD therefore puts little weight on this document as evidence that there is a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted in China for his religious beliefs and practices. [62] The RAD has considered the documentary evidence about the conditions in Fujian Province, the Appellant's personal circumstances, and the earlier noted credibility finding regarding the delay in making a claim for protection in Canada, the Appellant's ability to exit China and the veracity of his supporting documentation. The RAD finds on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would be able to practice his religion, worshiping in the Christian congregation of his choosing, if he were to return to Fujian Province in China, and there is not a serious possibility that he would be persecuted for doing so. [63] The RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility of persecution for the Appellant, nor would he be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, should he return to China. Accordingly, the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [64] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "Linda Hart" Linda Hart May 10, 2018 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 1. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (March 31, 2017), item 12.8, RIR CHN105283.E. 3 Ibid., item 14.11. 4 Ibid., item 14.5. 5 Ibid., item 10.4, Response to Information Request (RIR) CHN104762.E, 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) and item 14.3, RIR CHN104761.E, 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). 6 Ibid., item 14.17. 7 Ibid., item 14.3, RIR CHN104761.E. 8 Ibid., item 10.4, RIR CHN104762.E. 9 Ibid., item 10.4, RIR CHN104762.E. 10 Ibid., item 3.24, RIR CHN105049.E. 11 Ibid., item 14.15, RIR CHN105153.E. 12 Ibid., item 7.4. 13 Ibid., item 7.4. 14 X (Re), 2015 CanLII 72857 (CA IRB), at para. 23. 15 Zeng, Weili v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2337-13), O'Keefe, November 12, 2014, 2014 FC 1060, at para 32; Su, Jialu v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4968-14), Fothergill, May 25, 2015, 2015 FC 666, at para. 17; Cao, Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6248-13), Noël, March 12, 2015, 2015 FC 315, at para. 19. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 7. 17 Ibid., Exhibit 8. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (March 31, 2017), item 9.14, Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 82. 19 Ibid., item 9.10. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., item 3.22, RIR CHN104579.E, 21 October 2013, at p. 1. 22 Ibid., item 3.22. 23 Uddin, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-895-01), Gibson, April 26, 2002. 24 Gochez, Julio Cesar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3545-99), Dubé, September 7, 2000. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 10. 26 Ibid., Exhibit 7. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (March 31, 2017), item 12.1, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2016. 28 Ibid. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (March 31, 2017), item 12.13, Background Paper: Protestants in China. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (March 31, 2017), item 1.8, Country Information and Guidance. China: Christians. 31 Ibid. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (March 31, 2017), item 1.8. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 5. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (March 31, 2017), item 12.13. 38 Ibid., item 12.7. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-15034