TB8-09138

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-09138 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 28, 2020 Date de la décision Panel T. Andrews Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Stephanie K Fung Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of China who appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated March 20, 2018, rejecting his refugee claim. [2] The Appellant argues that the RPD was wrong to find that his account was not credible. After conducting an independent analysis, I find that the RPD was correct to find that he lacked credibility. The appeal is therefore dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he began to practice Catholicism after being introduced to the religion by his girlfriend. He attended her house church for the first time at the end of May 2013. [4] On May 10, 2015 the Public Security Bureau (PSB) raided the church service and he and three other members were taken to the police station, where they were interrogated and beaten. After being detained for three days, they were subsequently released on bail with a warning not to participate in any illegal religious activities, and they were told to report back to the PSB on May 15, 2015. When they did so they were forced to do hard labour. Following this, the Appellant was given a future reporting date and he decided to leave China. He made arrangements with a smuggler and he arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015. [5] Since his arrival he has continued to practice his faith and attended Church. However, he learned that following his failure to report on July 15, 2015 as required, the PSB went to his home to locate him. They then returned on July 21, 2015 and left a summons in his name. [6] He fears that he will be arrested if returned to China and that he will face religious persecution because of his practice of Roman Catholicism. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [7] The standard of review is correctness as established in Huruglica1, where the Federal Court of Appeal gives guidance in regard to the role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). ANALYSIS Memorandum of Appeal [8] The determinative issue on appeal is credibility. [9] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility, as it erred in its assessment of his religious identity, it erred by impugning his credibility based on his inability to produce his passport, and in its assessment of his supporting documents. [10] The Appellant is not relying on any new evidence referred to in subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and he does not request an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. Findings related to Credibility The summons is fraudulent [11] I find that the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's documents, in particular the summons, but I find that the RPD's final conclusion about the summons was correct after my own independent assessment. [12] The RPD found that fraudulent documents are widespread/easily accessible in China, that the PSB documents had no security features, they could have been created by anyone with a computer and printer, and given other credibility concerns it had surrounding his religious faith and passport, that little weight could be placed on these documents and they did not overcome the credibility concerns outlined. [13] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his supporting documents; that the bail receipt, the release certificate and the summons were all dismissed after the RPD found that the presumption of truthfulness had been rebutted, but they were never given due consideration. He submits that the RPD was obliged to consider them as the bail receipt confirms the reasons for his detention and the summons is particularly crucial because if accepted, it proves decisively that he is wanted by the PSB. [14] He submits also that these documents should benefit from the presumption of authenticity as they were issued by a competent foreign body, and they bear the official seals and letterheads of the issuing government authority, which are indicative of authenticity. [15] I have conducted my own independent assessment of the documents in question. I find that the presumption described is only so when there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of a document. However, when there are issues with a document which are readily apparent on its face or based on comparison to genuine samples available, such documents may be scrutinized and conclusions can be drawn as appropriate [16] I have closely examined the summons2 that was before the RPD, which was tendered to show that the principal Appellant is wanted by the Chinese authorities, and I find it is fraudulent. [17] The Chinese characters found at the top of the summons on the second line identify the summons type, and they match the sample for the public security summons (zhi'an chuanhuan). Thus, I compared the document to the sample. [18] According to the National Documentation Package (NDP), summonses have not varied in format since 2003. Further, the same document indicates that "...such forms are supposed to be used throughout the country and that regional variations are not meant to exist."3 Hence, the summons in evidence should duplicate the sample in terms of its format and structure. [19] I find that the summons in evidence differs significantly from the sample contained within the NDP. To begin, four lines down from the top of the document, on the left side of the document, the sample has one Chinese word/character, followed by two x's and a colon, whereas the summons proffered by the Appellant has two Chinese characters, none of which match the Chinese character on the sample. [20] In the main body of the document (the three lines that follow), the Chinese character which precedes the number 30 should appear immediately before it on the third line in accordance with the sample. However, in the summons in evidence, that Chinese character appears at the end of the second line of the main body of text. [21] There are two lines that follow. They are right justified, they indicate the date of issue and a stamp appears over them. In the first line there appears to be only five Chinese characters within the brackets where there should be six in accordance with the sample. And, in the second line the date of issuance appears in English numbers, whereas it should appear in all Chinese characters per the sample. [22] Finally, the bottom three lines of text are single spaced in the summons in evidence whereas they are double spaced in the sample. [23] Such differences are not meant to exist and In Jiang4, Justice Crampton found that small differences can be telling: In my view, it may very well be reasonably open to the RAD or another decision maker to question the authenticity of a document based on very small or even microscopic differences between the document and an authentic counterpart. It is in the small or microscopic details where a forgery may well be exposed. [24] I find on a balance of probabilities, that the summons that was submitted is fraudulent. The Appellant's submission of a fraudulent document in support of his case significantly undermines his credibility as he expressly proffered this summons to illustrate that he is wanted by the Chinese authorities for participating in an underground Catholic church. The Appellant's allegations were that he was arrested while attending a church service, he was interrogated, beaten and only released after his family paid for his bail. He had to report back to the PSB shortly thereafter and was forced to do hard labour. When he failed to report to them on his next reporting date as instructed because he had left the country, the PSB left a summons in his name. [25] Given that the summons is fraudulent, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not wanted, nor is he being investigated by the PSB or authorities in China for being a member of an underground Catholic church, as alleged. [26] The other documents which deal directly with his issues with the PSB because of his participation in the underground Catholic church in China are a release certificate5 indicating he was released from detention on May 13, 2015, and a bail receipt for bail paid in relation to his "involvement of illegal underground church activities."6 [27] I note that as per case law, submitting a false or irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by the Appellant, especially when they are interrelated,7 and on the overall credibility of an Appellant.8 I find that given the use of a fraudulent summons, that no weight can be put on these documents, which were allegedly issued by the same entity, the Lianjiang County PSB, and were issued in relation to the precipitating event that later resulted in the summons. [28] As there is no credible documentation provided to support that he is wanted by authorities, I find on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant is not a credible witness and that the determinative basis of his claim, i.e. being wanted by the authorities in China for his alleged involvement in Catholicism, is not credible. [29] In light of the above, I find it unnecessary to deal with the arguments in the memorandum related to the whereabouts of his passport as it would not change the outcome of the appeal, given my finding that the Appellant is not being investigated and/or is not wanted in China for practicing Catholicism at an underground church. Christian knowledge [30] The Appellant argues that it was an error for the RPD to impugn his credibility because he was unable to state when Easter was, because he could not explain the significance of Lent and due to his failure to complete the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) course. He submits that the Court warns against the use of religious trivia to impugn credibility as it is not an accurate determination of genuineness. He also suggests that despite attending an underground church for two years in China, he only had the benefit of his pastor's guidance once a year when the pastor attended their service. He suggests that it is plausible that he did not have the benefit of celebrating Easter or Lent in China. Further he submits that his inability to name the date does not mean that he was not observing celebrations in Canada, and while he stated that his church was observing Lent at the time of the hearing it does not mean that he must know its significance to be Roman Catholic. [31] He argues it was also an error to find that he is not a Roman Catholic because he did not complete the RCIA course and that his attendance only when the hearing was imminent was a sign of an ulterior motive. He indicates that his explanation that he did not acquire enough knowledge to qualify for baptism the first time around was reasonable and the RPD committed an error by focusing solely on the pastor's letters for their indication that he failed to complete the course, rather than on other indications of the Appellant's participation in Church activities. [32] At the hearing the Appellant testified that he first attended church in China on the last Sunday in May of 2013 and he would go every Sunday. He testified that the priest father XXXX would only come once a year from Taiwan to their service because if he came more often he could be suspected. [33] He testified that at church they would arrive early to prepare, lookouts would be arranged at the front and back doors, and once set up they would exchange testimonials about what happened before the period of prayers before the meeting. The owner would then give them the bible, they would sometimes read a bible passage in a very low tone and they would discuss whether or not they should preach to someone they trust. They would then pray. When the priest attended he would share his understanding of the religion to spread the gospel, he would conduct baptisms and would distribute the holy communion or bless those who were not baptized. [34] He testified that Jesus began the Catholic Church and performed many miracles such as turning water into wine, making the blind see and driving out demons. He testified that Jesus's death was for us and the purpose of it was to wash away sins. He testified that he did not know how to explain how Jesus's death achieved this as he was still learning, but testified that the death occurred by crucifixion on a cross, followed by resurrection, and then Jesus went to heaven. He testified that Catholics celebrate this at Easter. [35] He was asked when during the year Easter happens and he testified it was December 28th. When the member asked to confirm if it happens in December, he replied that he did not quite remember, but they had just celebrated it, he was thinking about Lent and was very nervous. He then added that he thought they celebrated it awhile ago. [36] He was asked about what Lent is and he testified that they were in the middle of Lent, after which Passover will happen. He testified that after Passover it will be a period called "Chang Nian Qi," which the interpreter could not find the meaning for, but indicated literally means long-term. When he was asked to explain further about this period, he testified that the Catholic church is divided into several periods like Easter, Lent and then longer than those two periods is Chang Nian Qi. The member clarified with the interpreter the Chinese word for Easter, which was Fuhou Qi, and then asked the Appellant what happens during "Chang Nian Qi" to which the Appellant responded "it's very long period." When asked how long he testified he could not recall. He was asked again about the significance of Lent and why Catholics celebrate it and he testified that he had not talked about this knowledge yet. He added that just a few days earlier a teacher taught them about Jesus's death. The member then pointed out that he had been a practicing Catholic since 2013 and asked how he was unable to identify when Easter was. He testified in response that the underground church was worshipping in secret and they did not have a copy of the bible. The member then confronted him with his earlier testimony that reading the bible was one of the things his underground group did. He replied that one day a week, they had the opportunity to read some bible content, that he and the members of the church did not have copies of the bible, and had to wait until the day of service where the owner would provide them with materials from the bible to read. [37] Later in testimony the Appellant was asked about his attendance at mass. He testified that he has attended regularly on Sundays since his arrival in Canada. When it was put to him that he would have gone through two Easter seasons since being in Canada, he verified that this was true. When asked again why he does not know when during the year Easter occurs, he testified that he was nervous whenever he was placed in formal situations, and then indicated that it seemed to him that Easter was January 4th. [38] I find that there is some merit to the Appellant's argument regarding the non-completion of the RCIA course. However, I find that the RPD was correct to find that the Appellant did not demonstrate knowledge of Catholicism indicative of a genuine believer. [39] While I am aware that the caselaw indicates that the bar for religious knowledge is fairly low, I find that the Appellant's lack of knowledge significantly undermines the credibility of his Christian identity. I agree with the RPD's findings related to the Appellant's knowledge and also find that the Appellant did not adequately explain why he did not know when Easter was. I have already found that he was not wanted for participating in a Catholic church in China. However, even if he did attend church in China and benefitted from the priest's attendance at his service once a year in China, I find it implausible that the occasion of Easter would not have been acknowledged in some way given its importance in the Christian/Catholic calendar, and that what occurs during this period is central to their beliefs. Beyond this, even if celebration of the date was not as pronounced in China because of the secretive nature of the church, the Appellant alleged he has attended church since shortly after his arrival in Canada. He arrived in Canada on approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015 and his refugee hearing occurred on March 15, 2018: two years and eight months later. He testified that he attends mass regularly, hence his lack of knowledge about when this significant event occurs is telling. [40] While he did have some knowledge of what Easter entailed, he could not say when it occurred. A specific date was not required, but I find it reasonable to anticipate that he would know the general time of year when it happened given his regular attendance at mass and if his involvement in the church was as recorded in the pastor's letter: attending classes, learning the catechism, attending mass every Sunday and attending other church activities. His answer that Easter occurred on December 28, (just after Christmas day) and then his adjustment to January 4, illustrates a lack of credibility, and while he displayed some knowledge of what Easter is, his speculation that it occurred on these dates shows the panel that he is not a genuine adherent in Canada. [41] Further, he was the one who brought up Lent in his testimony and then he could not explain what it or the longer "Chang Nian Qi" period were that were allegedly so important to his faith. His explanation that he is still learning is not credible again, given his more than two-year practice in Canada. While I am also not aware of Chang Nian Qi, I find that the important events of the Christian/Catholic church are basic, fundamental things that after 2.5 years of study would certainly be known, even if in rudimentary ways. [42] Although he displayed some knowledge, I find that based on the fraudulent summons and his lack of knowledge about fundamental timeframes and key events/periods of his faith, the Appellant is not a genuine Catholic. Sur place [43] I have considered the sur place issue as part of my independent assessment in acknowledgement that even if the Appellant was not a genuine Catholic in China, he could still be at risk if his Catholic activities in Canada came to the attention of the Chinese authorities upon return to China. [44] There are three letters9 in evidence from Reverend XXXX XXXX XXXX a pastor at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Markham. The latest indicates that the Appellant is attending the class of Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), and will be baptized upon successful completion of the program in July 2018. It also indicates that the Appellant is learning the Catechism, attends mass every Sunday and attends church activities. While the letters may validate that the Appellant is associated with the Church in Toronto, it does not establish that his practice was indicative of a genuine commitment to Catholicism. I place limited weight on this document as support for the Appellant's identity as a genuine Roman Catholic and find it does not overcome the credibility concerns outlined above. And, I note that despite the passage of another two years since his refugee hearing, the Appellant has not furnished a copy of a baptismal certificate in support of his appeal to establish his ongoing commitment to the church. [45] In my review of the record I find that there was no persuasive evidence submitted/adduced at the RPD hearing or in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form to suggest that the Appellant's practice at the Church in Toronto has come to the attention of Chinese authorities, or that he would be perceived to be a genuine Christian of the Catholic denomination upon return to China. He did not provide any evidence to indicate that he, or the group in Toronto, were ever observed, photographed, or approached by or faced harassment from anyone while engaged in religious activities. Hence, I find on a balance of probabilities, these activities would not place him at risk upon return. [46] In this respect, I am guided by the Federal Court Trial Division decision in Wang,13 which held that a sur place claim could not be maintained in the absence of evidence that the making of the refugee claim had specifically come to the attention of the authorities of the claimant's country of origin. [47] The Appellant's allegations were that his desire to commence the practice of Catholicism took place as a result of circumstances which occurred in China. He alleges that his practice in Canada is a continuation of the practice he began in China. However, having found that he was not a genuine Catholic in China, I find that his connection to the Church in Toronto in Canada is questionable. Further, having insufficient reliable and persuasive probative evidence of conversion in Canada, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant was not a Catholic in China, nor is he a Catholic in Canada. In the context of the findings noted above, I find that the Appellant affiliated himself with the practice for the sole purpose of supporting and bolstering his claim and he will on a balance of probabilities, not practice on return. CONCLUSION [48] Having reviewed all the evidence in this appeal, I agree with the RPD, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not a genuine Christian. I further agree with the RPD, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not wanted by the authorities in China because of Catholic activities or for any other reason. I find that the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution, nor would he face a danger of torture or a risk to his life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment upon return to China. I confirm the decision of the RPD and dismiss the appeal. (signed) T. Andrews T. Andrews July 28, 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), at paras 70, 103. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, at pp. 115-116. 3 National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (20 December 2019), Item 9.10. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Response to Information Request (RIR), CHN104458.E. 18 October 2013. 4 Jiang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1064 (CanLII). 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, pp. 113-114. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, pp. 111-112. 7 Uddin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 451 (CanLII). 8 Gochez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16258 (FC). 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 at pp. 87, 90 and 94. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-09138 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