TC1-21863

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-21863 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision March 24, 2022 Date de la décision Panel L.S. Hart Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Pantea Samei 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. His claim for refugee protection, based on his practice of Falun Gong, was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in assessing his claim and asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to allow his appeal and substitute a positive decision or return his claim to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he fears persecution in China because of his practice of Falun Gong. He was introduced to Falun Gong by his friend XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2015, because he was suffering from XXXX after the deaths of his father and sister. He began to attend group practices in XXXX 2015. The Appellant's health improved, and his doctor confirmed that he was recovering from his XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the Appellant's group practice was raided by the police. The Appellant and his friend, XXXX XXXX, escaped by swimming across the river. The Appellant went to hide at his aunt's home. His wife contacted him by telephone the next day to tell him that the police had been to their home and had left a summons for him to appear the next day. She also advised him that his friend, XXXX XXXX, had been detained by the police. The Appellant left China with the help of a person named XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [4] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the Minister) intervened, and provided information regarding the Appellant's stay in the United States (US) beginning in 2004, a copy of a US visa application made in 2015, and a copy of the Canadian visa application made in 2017. The Minister submitted that the information provided shows that the Appellant was fingerprinted on XXXX XXXX, 2004, upon entry into the US and again fingerprinted on XXXX XXXX, 2015, at the US consulate in Guangzhou for the purpose of a US visa application which was subsequently refused. The Minister submitted that the Appellant initially responded in the negative to question 6 (d) of the Schedule A form, which asks about previous visa refusals, and only corrected his declaration later with handwritten notes stating that he was refused a US visa in XXXX 2015. The Minister noted that the XXXX 2015 date did not match the biometric report which states that it occurred in XXXX 2015. [5] The Minister submitted that the Appellant also chose not to disclose to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) or the immigration authorities that he overstayed his business visa which expired on XXXX XXXX, 2004, which was a clear violation of US immigration law. The Minister was of the opinion that the Appellant most likely misrepresented his personal information as early as 2004 for the purpose of obtaining a visa for undisclosed purposes in the US. [6] The Minister submitted that the fraudulent information contained in the XXXX 2015 US visa application was provided prior to the Appellant's introduction to Falun Gong in XXXX 2015. The Minister argued that there was no reason for him to lie about anything in that visa application because it was submitted before the events that caused him to flee China. The Minister additionally noted that the Appellant never declared that he used an agent or smuggler to improperly obtain any visas while he was in China before the alleged events. The Minister argued that this seriously undermined the Appellant's credibility and caused serious doubt over the genuineness of the alleged events of persecution. [7] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was first heard by the RPD on February 4, 2020. The RPD rejected his claim. The Appellant's appeal of this decision to the RAD was allowed and the claim was returned to the RPD to be reheard. The claim was reheard on November 29, 2021, and in a written decision dated December 9, 2021, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant was not credible with respect to his alleged Falun Gong practice in China, and that he is not wanted by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) for his Falun Gong activities or for any other reason. The RPD further found that the Appellant had not established that he is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada or that his Falun Gong activities in Canada have come to the attention of the authorities in China. [8] On appeal, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility and in its determination of the sur place aspect of his claim. ANALYSIS Visa Applications RPD's Findings [9] The RPD found that the Appellant's credibility was undermined by his blatant disregard for both US and Canadian immigration laws. The RPD considered that he provided false information in his 2015 US visa application which was prior to when he began to practice Falun Gong in China. The RPD noted that the Appellant stated that he was unaware of what information in the application was fraudulent, and he blamed everything on the smuggler to whom he had provided his personal information and passport. The RPD noted that the Appellant initially testified that he was uncertain if there was incorrect information contained in the 2017 Canadian visa application, but after taking a break from the proceedings he acknowledged that the 2017 application contained fraudulent information. [10] The RPD additionally considered that the Appellant did not disclose to the immigration authorities that he had used the services of a smuggler to facilitate his journey and rejected his explanation that he had not been asked about that by the immigration authorities. [11] The RPD found that the Appellant was not fleeing persecution when he went to the US in 2004, or when he submitted the 2015 US visa application. The RPD commented that to blame everything on the smuggler was a complete disregard for the laws of the country to which he was entering. The Appellant's Arguments [12] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in impugning his credibility because of his use of false information in his visa application. He submits that the specific false information contained in the visa application was not known to him. He argues that he was forthright and honest in his responses and at no point was his testimony evolving or vague. He submits that it is unreasonable to expect someone fleeing their country in fear of persecution to openly admit to immigration officers at a port of entry that they are in possession of a visitor's visa which contains false information, especially when acting on the advice of a smuggler. There is no evidence to suggest that immigration officers had asked him about the use of the smuggler and that he lied or misrepresented himself. [13] The Appellant submits that he did disclose in his Schedule 12 form that he had used an agent to apply for the Canadian visitor visa and the RPD erroneously impugned his credibility for not willingly disclosing this information to Canadian immigration authorities without being asked. He argues that the RPD's rejection of his explanation that he had not been asked about the use of a smuggler was based on speculation and conjecture. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by impugning his credibility on the basis of a smuggler using fraudulent information on his visa application, given that he was fleeing persecution in his country. RAD's Findings [14] I have reviewed the record and have considered the Appellant's testimony. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant was not forthcoming about his previous immigration history with the US when he entered Canada and that this undermined his general credibility. I further concur with the RPD that the use of false information when attempting to get a US visa in 2015, at a time when he was not fearing persecution, shows that the Appellant was willing and able to use fraudulent methods to achieve his goals. While these findings are not determinative of the appeal on their own, I find that when considered cumulatively with other findings, they are significant. [15] 2004 stay in the US: I note that when the Appellant signed his refugee intake documents on September 19, 2017, he did not include information that he had remained in the US from 2004 to 2008. What he did include was an address in the US from XXXX 2004 to XXXX 2004.1 However, it was revealed by the Minister in XXXX 2018, that the Appellant had overstayed his visa in 2004, and he admitted at the hearing that he had resided in the US without status for four years. [16] When asked at the hearing why he had not disclosed that he had lived in the US for four additional years, he replied that he did not want to think about history and did not know he had to write about that. He stated that when asked about it at his immigration interview, he realized it was serious and confessed to the officer that he had gone to the US in 2004, but not that he was there illegally for four years, which the officer had not asked about. However, I note that the Appellant did write in response to Question 12 of The Schedule A form2 that he resided in Chicago from XXXX 2004 to XXXX 2004, and that the information he disclosed at the interview was that he had acquired a business visa in 2004. I find that the Appellant did not reasonably explain why he purposely withheld information about his illegal four year stay in the US from Canadian immigration authorities, given that he was represented by experienced legal counsel, the contents of the form were translated to him by an interpreter, and he had signed the documents saying that the information was complete, true, and correct. I take a negative credibility inference from the Appellant purposely withholding this information. [17] 2015 US Visa Application: The Appellant was asked at the hearing whether the information contained in his US visa application was genuine and he replied in the negative. When asked what information in the document was not true, he replied that he did not know because the smuggler had handled everything. He was asked if he had only discovered there was false information in the visa application at the current hearing and he replied that the Member told him at his first RPD hearing that it was false. However, he also stated later in the hearing that he knew that the information contained in his visa application was false when he went for his interview at the US embassy in China. The Appellant was asked why he used false information in his 2015 visa application, and he replied that he gave the smuggler his true information. [18] I find that the Appellant's use of a smuggler to acquire a visa in 2015 indicates his awareness that he was not going through legal channels to acquire a visa and that this was before he allegedly began to practice Falun Gong and fear persecution in China. I have additionally considered that he initially withheld information about his 2015 visa application in his refugee intake forms, despite being specifically asked in the form whether he had ever been refused a visa to Canada or any other country. The form was completed and signed by the Appellant on September 9, 2017, and the changes were made when he was interviewed by an immigration officer on October 12, 2017. The Appellant was represented by counsel when he completed the forms and was provided with an interpreter. I find that he has not reasonably explained the initial omission of this information from the Schedule A form. [19] I find that the use of a smuggler when the Appellant was not fearing persecution and the omission of the information about his US visa application in 2015 negatively impact the Appellant's credibility. Pursuit by the PSB RPD's Findings [20] The RPD found that the Appellant had not provided any credible evidence regarding the pursuit by the PSB before or after his departure. The RPD considered that there was no mention in his Basis of Claim (BOC) of the PSB continuing to pursue him after leaving a summons at his home. The RPD rejected his explanation that he did not know he needed to include this information, as he was represented by competent counsel. Appellant's Arguments [21] The Appellant argues the BOC narrative is not meant to be an exhaustive narration of everything that happened in the Appellant's life, but rather a summary of the incidents that the Appellant considered central to his claim for refugee protection. He submits that the omission of pursuit by the PSB is truly minor in nature and not central to his claim as he had already provided other supporting documentation to establish that he was wanted by the PSB, including a summons, and support letters from his wife and fellow Falun Gong practitioners. The Appellant argues that a refugee hearing is not meant to be a memory test and the focus should not be on minor inconsequential omissions. RAD's Findings [22] I find that the omission from the BOC of continued pursuit by the PSB, after they had left a summons to appear for questioning, is not minor or inconsequential. The continued pursuit of the Appellant by the PSB goes to the heart of his claim that he cannot return to China because he is wanted by the authorities. [23] The Appellant was questioned at the hearing about whether the PSB had returned to his home after leaving the summons on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The Appellant responded that the PSB did go to his home. When asked why there was no mention of the PSB returning to his home in his BOC narrative, he responded that they went to his home later. He was asked when, and he responded that it was in XXXX 2017. He corrected himself when it was pointed out that he had said they first came in XXXX 2017, and he stated that the PSB went to his home and left a summons with his wife in XXXX 2017. He was asked again if they returned to his home after they left a summons and he replied that they did, but he did not remember the date or how many times the PSB went to his home looking for him. He was later asked specifically whether the PSB returned to his home between the time they left a summons and when he left China in XXXX 2017, and he replied that they did. When asked again why he did not put this information in his BOC narrative, he responded that he was not aware that he needed to write it down. [24] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not reasonably explain the omission from his BOC of subsequent visits by the PSB. The Appellant was represented by experienced counsel, and I do not find it reasonable that he would not be aware that he needed to include information regarding pursuit by the agents of persecution. The continued visits by the PSB to his home are the most recent events that happened in China, and it is reasonable to expect that he would include this information in his BOC. I note as well that the Appellant provided a letter from his wife for his first hearing before the RPD.3 This letter, dated XXXX XXXX, 2017, contains no information regarding PSB visits to their home. [25] A more recent letter from his wife, dated XXXX XXXX, 2021,4 states that the PSB still come to her home frequently "to search," ever since the Appellant came to Canada, but she does not provide any specific dates. I note that this letter does not address the period of time between when the summons was issued, and when the Appellant left China on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [26] I have considered that the Appellant did not reasonably explain the omission from his BOC regarding the PSB visits after the issuance of the summons, and that the first letter from his wife contained no information about PSB visits. Furthermore, the Appellant's testimony regarding the PSB visits contained no details other than a summons being left during the first visit. I find that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the PSB returned to his home in China after issuing a summons for him to appear at the police station the next day. [27] I have further considered that the Appellant testified at the hearing that it was the intention of the PSB to arrest him on the day of the raid in XXXX 2017, and that his co-practitioner, who was arrested on the day of the raid, still remains in custody. Given these circumstances, as well as the Appellant's nonappearance after the issuance of a summons, and his ability to exit China, which are addressed below, I find that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities, that he is wanted by the authorities in China. [28] I have considered that the Appellant submitted a second letter from his wife which speaks about PSB visits to their home after he left China. I assign little weight to this letter given that it contains no details about when the PSB visited, and because the Appellant has not established that the PSB were seeking him prior to his exit from China. According to the Appellant's evidence, PSB visits to his home after he left China were a continuation of the visits that had occurred prior to his exit. Having found that the PSB visits to his home prior to his exit did not occur, and because the more recent visits to the Appellant's home are linked to those occurrences, I find that little weight can be assigned to the second letter from his wife in establishing that the police continue to search for the Appellant. The Summons RPD's Findings [29] The RPD found that little weight could be given to the summons in establishing that the Appellant is being pursued by the PSB. The RPD expressed concern that the stamp on the summons appears to have been written over, which caused the RPD to question the veracity of the document. However, the RPD found that even if that was not a concern, there were other aspects that undermined the genuineness of the summons. The RPD noted that the summons issued was a non-coercive investigative summons and found that it was reasonable to expect that a coercive summons would have been issued when the Appellant did not appear as required. The RPD considered that the Chinese authorities view Falun Gong practitioners as members of a cult, as well as the arrest of a fellow practitioner and the alleged follow-up visits to his home by the PSB. The RPD found that the absence of a compulsory summons, when it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would have been issued in one, undermined the summons he did tender. Appellant's Arguments [30] The Appellant argues that the RPD impugned his credibility because the summons issued by the PSB indicated that a coercive summons would be issued if he did not appear. He submits that he was only questioned about how he obtained the summons. He submits that the RPD failed to assign appropriate weight to this key evidence showing his risk of persecution in China. Furthermore, he argues that the Federal Court has found this type of reasoning regarding the non-issuance of a coercive summons to be highly speculative and unreasonable. RAD's Findings [31] I find that the issuance of a noncoercive, investigative summons for the Appellant does not show that he is wanted for arrest by the authorities. I have considered the Appellant's particular circumstances as alleged. I note that he stated at the hearing that it was the intention of the PSB to arrest him when his group practice was raided on XXXX XXXX, 2017. He specifically testified at the hearing that they arrested him, and he escaped. Given that it was the intention of the PSB to arrest the Appellant, and a fellow practitioner has been continuously detained since the raid, I agree with the RPD that it is suspicious that the authorities would issue an investigative summons for the purpose of questioning the Appellant. [32] Further, the type of summons issued to the Appellant was a Public Security summons which cannot last more than twelve hours. It is noted in the country conditions documentary evidence that this type of short term detention "is used against criminal suspects the police consider do not need to be formally arrested."5 Article 119 of The Criminal Procedure Law states that criminal suspects that do not need to be taken into custody or arrested may be summoned to a location in the city or county.6 According to the Appellant, he is wanted for arrest in China. I find that the type of summons issued to the Appellant does not accurately reflect this. I have considered the lack of a follow-up, coercive summons after the Appellant did not appear as required on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and the lack of credible information regarding return visits by the PSB, and I find that they are indicative of a lack of interest in the Appellant by the authorities. [33] I have additionally considered that Falun Gong practitioners are considered members of an evil cult and that a special Ministry of Justice office known as the 610 office, oversees the government's crackdown on Falun Gong.7 Given how the Appellant would be perceived by the Chinese government, I find it is reasonable to expect that the authorities would have used coercive measures to compel the Appellant to appear as required. Exit from China RPD's Findings [34] The RPD found that the evidence surrounding the Appellant's passage through the airport in China was not credible as his testimony regarding the number of times he was required to show his passport was inconsistent with the country conditions documentary evidence. The RPD further considered the documentary evidence stating that Chinese citizens are not allowed to exit China if they are suspects or defendants in criminal cases, and that everyone leaving China is subject to identity controls based on the passport check. The RPD noted that the Appellant stated at the hearing that the smuggler assisted him with travel to two airports in China but did not accompany him through the airport to board the aircraft to Canada. The RPD found it significant that he was able to exit the country notwithstanding his testimony with respect to PSB pursuit, the detention of a co-practitioner, and the issuance of a summons. When considered in conjunction with the lack of evidence with respect to PSB visits, the lack of a coercive summons, and failure to establish the detention of a co-practitioner, the RPD concluded that the Appellant was not wanted by the PSB for his Falun Gong activities or for any other reason. Appellant's Arguments [35] The Appellant argues that the RPD did not state which part of his testimony was not plausible, especially considering that he had used a smuggler for his passage through the airport. He submits that he specifically testified that the smuggler accompanied him for the first leg of his trip from Hunan to Tianjin and that in the last airport before leaving for Canada, he gave the Appellant the ticket and told him to enter the gate. He testified that he did not present his passport more than once and only did so when passing through security. [36] The Appellant submits that the RPD relied on an unstated plausibility finding regarding his ability to fly out of an airport in China using his own identity documents. He argues that when making a plausibility finding it was not open to the RPD to prefer to rely on the objective evidence rather than his own testimony. He submits that the RPD was required to find that his exit from China while wanted by the PSB was so far outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected that it could not possibly have happened. He submits that where there is evidence of corruption it is incumbent on the RPD to explain why these factors could not have reasonably overcome the centralized system, which the RPD failed to do. [37] The Appellant argues that the country conditions documentary evidence notes that sources have indicated that the implementation of exit bans is arbitrary. He further argues that the documentary evidence does not specifically state that every individual boarding a departure flight in China has their personal information checked against all databases of people wanted by the PSB. RAD's findings [38] I have considered that the Appellant was able to exit China using a passport with his own name and photo, despite alleging to being wanted for arrest by the authorities. I have reviewed 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".8 [39] I find that it is clear from the Appellant's allegations that he was wanted by the authorities for arrest. I find that the Appellant's information would have been entered into the Golden Shield database, given his particular circumstances. I find that the preponderance of the documentary evidence contained in the record indicates that it is not possible for a person who is under investigation or wanted for arrest by the authorities to exit China. I note that Article 12 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People's Republic of China states that Chinese citizens are not allowed to exit China when they are suspects or defendants in criminal cases.9 It is also noted in the documentary evidence that passports and travelers are thoroughly examined by immigration and customs officials in China using advanced technology, real name online registration requirements, GPS monitoring and advanced passenger information that is submitted to Chinese authorities by the airline prior to going through exit immigration inspection procedures.10 The Appellant exited China through the airport in Beijing. Country conditions documentation notes that the Beijing International Airport has over 600 biometric checkpoints implemented throughout the airport.11 Furthermore, for outgoing flights, aviation companies must report names, nationalities, genders, dates of birth, passport or other exit-entry document numbers, expiry dates of the validity of passport or other exit-entry documents, and personnel types before the passengers and crew members on board go through the exit immigration inspection procedures.12 [40] I note that the Golden Shield system has been used to track down Falun Gong practitioners. Country documentation indicates that: [...] the Chinese economist's writing in Open Magazine affirms that "Cisco's Policenet has been helping the [Chinese Communist Party]'s public security organs to ferret out political dissidents and Falun Gong practitioners for years."13 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". Also accessible through the databases is information on household registration [hukou], border exit and entry, road traffic, and criminal investigations.14 [41] The Appellant has alleged that he is being sought by the authorities because he is a Falun Gong practitioner. He has alleged that they were seeking to arrest him prior to his exit from China. Given that the authorities have allegedly continued to seek out the Appellant, and have detained one of his fellow practitioners, it is reasonable that they would seek to restrict the Appellant's movements as well. [42] I have considered the objective evidence, and the particular circumstances of the Appellant, and find that it is reasonable to believe that if he was being pursued by the PSB, as he alleges, his name would have been entered in the Golden Shield database and he would be unable to leave China. The country conditions documentary evidence notes that airport officials have access to a network which includes national and provincial level blacklists. High-profile activists are placed on the list by the Ministry of Public Security or the Ministry of State Security, while other dissidents are placed on the list by the provincial level or the city level public security bureaus or state security bureaus. It is further noted that people charged with crimes are on a separate list.15 According to the Appellant's evidence, he is wanted for his practice of Falun Gong. He has alleged that the PSB has continued to seek him out, and I find that it is reasonable in the circumstances that his name would have been placed on a list accessible by airport authorities. [43] While there is documentary evidence that indicates that corruption exists within the police force in China, and that authorities in China do not always apply regulations evenly, I find that the preponderance of the documentary evidence does state that authorities at borders conduct thorough screenings. I find that there is insufficient evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, or in the Appellant's disclosure to establish that corruption extends to the airport security apparatus, specifically relating to individuals using their own passports to leave the country. [44] I find that the Appellant's allegation that he was able to exit China using his own passport is inconsistent with the documentary evidence in the record. I find that it is not credible or plausible that the Appellant would be able to leave China using his own identity if he was wanted by the authorities. Furthermore, I find that the Appellant's ability to exit China undermines his central allegation that he was wanted by the PSB for practicing Falun Gong. This finding is also supported by Zeng, Su, and Cao, in which the Federal Court has supported findings that traveling unimpeded through Chinese exit controls is inconsistent with being wanted by the Chinese authorities.16 [45] I find that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was able to exit China because a smuggler helped him to evade detection by the authorities. He testified that the smuggler did not accompany him to Canada and that the smuggler handed him his documents at the airport and advised him of which airport gate to go through. The Schedule 12 form,17 one of the refugee intake documents, asks in question 7 about the person who facilitated the journey to Canada and what was done by that person. In response, the Appellant wrote "apply visa, and escort to Canada". There is no information about evading airport security measures in any of the documentation provided by the Appellant or in his testimony. I find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the smuggler hired by the Appellant used bribery to facilitate his exit. [46] Having reviewed all the evidence, as well as the findings noted regarding other aspects of the claim, I find that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellant was not credible regarding his ability to exit the country using his own passport and finding that he was not a person of interest to the Chinese authorities. I find his ability to exit the country using his own identity undermines his allegations that he was wanted by the authorities because of his practice of Falun Gong. Summary Regarding Events in China, and Travel History [47] I have considered my findings regarding the Appellant's history of bypassing immigration requirements and law at times when he was not at risk of persecution; that he has not established on a balance of probabilities that he is wanted by the authorities in China; and his ability to exit China despite allegedly being wanted for arrest. When considered cumulatively, I find that the RPD did not err in concluding that the Appellant had not established on a balance of probabilities, that he was a practitioner of Falun Gong in China. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant did not leave China in order to practice Falun Gong in Canada. Falun Gong Knowledge and Sur Place Claim RPD's Findings [48] The RPD acknowledged that the Appellant was able to respond to a few simple questions about Falun Gong put to him by his counsel but found that most of his responses to the questions asked by the panel were incorrect, incomplete, and demonstrated a lack of understanding. The RPD considered that the Appellant has 12 years of formal education and had allegedly been practising Falun Gong for a period of more than four years. The RPD found that his knowledge of Falun Gong was not commensurate with his alleged practice. The RPD considered that Falun Gong is a knowledge-based practice and that it is reasonable to expect a person who alleges to be a practitioner to be able to demonstrate a level of fundamental knowledge commensurate with his or her experience in the practice. [49] The RPD noted that the Appellant testified that he had begun the practice of Falun Gong in Canada in XXXX 2017, and he submitted a letter from a co-practitioner and photographs in support of his claim. The RPD found that these items did not attest to the genuineness of his Falun Gong practice. The RPD found that the Appellant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a Falun Gong practitioner in China or the genuineness of his practice in Canada. [50] The RPD found that there was no evidence that the Appellant's activities in Canada had come to the attention of the authorities in China. The RPD noted that there was no evidence adduced that the Appellant had any leadership roles or that he would have been identifiable. The RPD considered that there was no evidence in the record that the Appellant had participated in anything other than his group practice which had ceased in March 2020 because of COVID restrictions. Appellant's Arguments [51] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding he was never a Falun Gong practitioner in China, which led the RPD to view his sur place claim with scepticism. He submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider the totality of the evidence and importing earlier credibility findings. He submits that he provided a letter from his wife detailing the efforts of the authorities to locate him and that he is a sur place refugee as he would face a serious risk of persecution if returned to China. [52] The Appellant argues that not all practitioners acquire the same level of religious knowledge within the same amount of time, and that practice duration is not an accurate benchmark to gauge the amount of religious knowledge. He submits that his responses to knowledge questions were entirely genuine and spontaneous and not in need of much prompting. He submits that he provided numerous reasons why he continues to practice and will continue to practice if returned to China, but the RPD found this to be insufficient. RAD's Findings [53] I have reviewed the record and note that the Appellant did have some knowledge of Falun Gong practice and philosophy. However, having found that the Appellant was not a practitioner of Falun Gong in China, I must consider whether the Appellant is a genuine practitioner in this country. The Appellant has alleged that his motivation to practice Falun Gong in Canada took place as a result of his practice in China. He has alleged that his practice of Falun Gong in Canada is a continuation of his Falun Gong practice in China. [54] I have found that the Appellant was not a practitioner of Falun Gong in China and having no evidence of an impetus to practice in Canada, I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant has engaged in Falun Gong activities and has learned about the practice in Canada only for the purpose of supporting a fraudulent refugee claim. I find, based on the totality of the credibility findings previously noted, the Appellant is not presently a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong and that he would not engage in Falun Gong activities should he return to China. [55] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant has acquired knowledge of Falun Gong and has attended Falun Gong group practice in the past to advance a claim for refugee protection. I agree with the RPD that the letter from a fellow practitioner and the photographs18 can only attest to his participation, but not to his motivation. In this regard, case law19 indicates that, when finding that the Appellant has advanced a fraudulent claim of being a Falun Gong practitioner in China, the RPD can reasonably reject evidence advanced to support the sur place claim. I give little evidentiary weight to these documents in assessing the genuineness of the Appellant's belief system and practice. I also give little evidentiary weight to the Appellant's supporting documents in assessing the genuineness of his Falun Gong practice. As noted earlier, I have found that little weight can be assigned to the second letter from the Appellant's wife for the reasons identified in establishing that the PSB continues to seek out the Appellant. [56] Having conducted my own assessment of the record, I find that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that his Falun Gong activities in Canada have or will bring him to the attention of Chinese authorities. I find that the likelihood that he would practice Falun Gong should he return to China is minimal, given the finding that he is not a genuine practitioner. CONCLUSION [57] I find that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted, should he return to China, 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. [58] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) L. S. Hart L.S. Hart March 24, 2022 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, previous Exhibit 1, Schedule A form, p. 71. 2 Ibid. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, previous Exhibit 5, p. 383. 4 Ibid., Exhibit 5, p. 479. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (May 31, 2021), item 9.11, Response to Information Request (RIR) CHN104188.E, Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), 30 November 2012, p. 3. 6 Ibid., item 9.5, China, 2018. 7 Ibid., previous Exhibit 4, p. 178. 8 Ibid., Exhibit 2, NDP for China (May 31, 2021), item 12.8, RIR CHN105283.E, IRB, 23 September 2015, p. 2. 9 Ibid., item 14.3, RIR CHN106355.E, IRB, 3 October 2019, p. 1. 10 Ibid., item 14.15, RIR CHN105153.E, IRB, 31 March 2015. 11 Ibid., item 10.8, RIR CHN200324.E, IRB, 9 October 2020, p. 8. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., item 10.4. RIR CHN104762.E, IRB, 7 March 2014, pp. 4-5. 14 Ibid., p. 5. 15 Ibid., item 14.3, RIR CHN106355.E, IRB, 3 October 2019, p. 7. 16 Zeng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1060; Su v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 666; Cao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 315. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, previous Exhibit 1, Schedule 12 form, p. 74. 18 Ibid., Exhibit 5, pp. 390-392 19 Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 969. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-21863 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français