TB8-14566

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14566 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 January 12, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Devika Ratnayake Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Hart Kaminker 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), a citizen of China, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD"), dated May 18, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. He has not submitted new evidence in support of his appeal. [2] The Appellant alleged that he is wanted by the Chinese authorities, namely, the Public Security Bureau ("PSB"), who sought his arrest twice before he left China because he opposed the local government's refusal to provide fair compensation for expropriating his property and some other property owners, and he protested against their demolition policy. [3] The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") is whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment that the Appellant is not wanted by the PSB owing to any anti-government activities. DECISION [4] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"). ANALYSIS [5] In determining whether the RPD's decision is correct, I have independently assessed the entire appeal record, including the audio recording of the RPD's hearing. [6] The RPD determined that the Appellant is not of interest or wanted by the Chinese authorities, namely, the PSB. The RPD's findings were based on the following factors: (a) the Appellant's ability to buy, without difficulty, a train ticket from Tieling to Beijing using his own identity documents and his train travel from Tieling City to Beijing without detection when the documentary evidence indicates the real-name ticket system is used by the police to identify and detain fugitives;1 (b) on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not have been able to exit from Beijing bypassing the Golden Shield, using his own genuine passport, if the Chinese authorities were actively seeking the Appellant's arrest; (c) if the PSB had sought the Appellant's arrest on two occasions before he left China, it would be indicative of the PSB's active interest in the Appellant which would have likely resulted in his inclusion in the Golden Shield as a person of interest to the authorities;2 (d) the Appellant's actions in seeking higher compensation from the municipal government is unlikely to have resulted in the Appellant being considered a political dissident/enemy of the state because it was restricted to the local level of government and did not escalate to the State level of government; and (e) the Appellant's documentary evidence, while indicating that his home was likely expropriated, was incapable of establishing that the Appellant clashed with the authorities, or his alleged anti-government activities, or the Chinese authority's active interest in the Appellant. [7] In essence, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding that the Appellant was not wanted by the PSB based on his ability to exit China. He submits that it is possible for a smuggler to defeat the Golden Shield, and the RPD did not seriously consider the Appellant's evidence that he used a smuggler and the role of the smuggler and corruption in China in his ability to exit; there have been instances where people have successfully evaded the Golden Shield; the Chinese government's surveillance methods are not well known; and there is evidence of inconsistent implementation. Hence, the Appellant submits that it was plausible he was able to exit China despite being targeted by the Chinese authorities. [8] Further, the Appellant argues that his activities in protesting the demolition of his home, cumulatively, establishes his profile as a political dissident wanted by the PSB and that the RPD erred in finding that the petition letter did not demonstrate he clashed with the authorities. Train ticket purchase and travel from Tieling City to Beijing [9] The RPD found that the Appellant's ability to buy, without difficulty, a train ticket from Tieling to Beijing using his own identity documents and his train travel from Tieling City to Beijing without detection when the documentary evidence indicates the real-name ticket system used by the police to identify and detain fugitives is indicative that the PSB was not actively interested in the Appellant.3 [10] The Appellant did not dispute the RPD's finding that his ability to buy without difficulty a train ticket using his own identity documents and travel by train from Tieling City to Beijing without difficulty or detection by the authorities was because, on a balance of probabilities, he was not wanted by the PSB. [11] Based on my independent review and assessment of the documentary evidence,4 even taking into consideration any potential gaps in the PSB's monitoring system, I agree with the RPD that, on a balance of probabilities, if the Appellant was of interest to the PSB, he would not have been able to either purchase the ticket with his own identity documents or travel from Tieling City to Beijing without any trouble or detection. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Appellant did not have any difficulty purchasing the ticket or travel from Tieling to Beijing because he was not of interest to the Chinese authorities. The Appellant's Exit from Beijing International Airport [12] The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not have been able to exit from Beijing bypassing the Golden Shield, using his own genuine passport, if the Appellant was wanted by the Chinese authorities and if they were actively interested in him. [13] The Appellant makes several arguments regarding why the RPD's finding about his exit from Beijing was erroneous. In essence, the thrust of his arguments are that the RPD failed to consider: the Appellant's evidence that he used a smuggler and the role of the smuggler in assisting with his exit, including the plausibility that the smuggler had sufficient experience, expertise and the means to have helped the Appellant bypass security measures; and the systemic corruption in China and the likelihood that airport officials can be bribed. The Appellant also submits that there are isolated incidents where dissidents who are wanted by the authorities can evade the Golden Shield. [14] After reviewing the entire record, I agree with the Appellant that the RPD failed to fully explain why the Appellant's claims that he used a smuggler and the existence of corruption in China did not account for his ability to exit China using his own genuine passport and avoid the Golden Shield. [15] However, based on my independent assessment and for the reasons that follow, I find that the RPD did not err in its conclusion that the Appellant was able to exit China because he was not of interest to the Chinese authorities. Further, I find the Appellant's explanation that he was able to exit China on his own passport because he used a smuggler and because the smuggler may have bribed airport authorities because there is corruption in China is not credible. [16] I note that, in assessing the credibility of the Appellant's exit from Beijing International Airport, the RPD relied on TB6-11632, the China Jurisprudential Guide ("JG"). The JG was revoked on June 28, 2019, and, as such, for the purposes of this appeal, I am not relying on the JG in conducting my independent assessment of the Appellant's claim. (a) The use of a smuggler [17] The Appellant did not testify at any point during the hearing that the smuggler bribed airport officials or made arrangements with airport officials to help the Appellant bypass airport security controls. The audio recording of the RPD's hearing confirms this. [18] Similarly, the Appellant's Basis of Claim form ("BOC") makes no mention of the smuggler either bribing airport authorities or providing the Appellant any assistance to bypass airport security controls. The BOC simply stated that "...the smuggler applied the Canadian visa for me, the smuggler used the information which I provided to him. ... Before I left China, the smuggler learned through his connection that my name had not been placed on the charge list yet and that was why I could come to Canada."5 Similarly, in Schedule 12, which asks about what was done by any person who facilitated the Appellant's journey to Canada, the Appellant only stated that the smuggler assisted in obtaining the visa.6 [19] The RPD asked the Appellant several questions about why he got a smuggler and what the smuggler did to assist him.7 The Appellant testified in vague and general terms that he needed a smuggler because the PSB had been looking for him and that he wanted to leave China.8 When probed, he testified that the smuggler helped him obtain the Canadian visa and flight ticket.9 He testified that, although he obtained the Canadian visa with the help of the smuggler, he used genuine information about himself for the visa. He testified that he needed the smuggler because he did not know English and because the PSB was looking for him. [20] When the RPD questioned the Appellant about what the smuggler told him when he last saw the smuggler at the Beijing International Airport prior to departing to Canada, the Appellant testified that the smuggler "just reassured me that, when I go through security and customs, I need not be scared because all the information provided is genuine, so there should be no issue."10 [21] I find the Appellant's testimony that the smuggler told him he need not be fearful as he passes through airport security and customs because he was travelling on his genuine documents to be not credible since it makes little sense as to how a person who is fleeing the country because of the PSB's interest in him would find travelling on his own genuine documents to be reassuring. If anything, travelling on his own genuine documents would increase the likelihood of his detection and arrest. Further, the incidents mentioned in the National Documentation Package ("NDP") about the role of smugglers and corruption refer to persons travelling on false identities and documents, not on their own genuine passports like the Appellant did. I find the foregoing undermines the Appellant's argument that he was able to safely exit China because of the smuggler's assistance. I find, on a balance of probabilities, he was able to exit China because he is not of interest to the Chinese authorities. (b) The Golden Shield and the PSB's interest in the Appellant [22] The Appellant testified that he was able to exit China, despite the Chinese airport authorities' access to computer systems which allows them to see individuals wanted by the authorities, because the smuggler found out before he left China that he was not on the list of persons who were forbidden to leave the country. [23] 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."11 Given the objective evidence, I find that, if the PSB was actively interested in the Appellant and had sought to arrest him on two occasions as he alleges, that it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant's name would have been included in the Golden Shield database, and he would not have been able to exit China. [24] I find the preponderance of the documentary evidence in the record indicates that it is not possible for a person who is under investigation or wanted 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.12 It is also noted in the documentary evidence that passports and travellers 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.13 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.14 [25] Further, documentary evidence also indicates that the Golden Shield system has been used to track down political dissidents: "...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..."15 [26] 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... [footnotes omitted].16 [27] Based on the foregoing and the Appellant's evidence that his name was not on the Golden Shield undermines his allegation that he is wanted by the PSB and that the PSB is actively interested in him. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that, if the Chinese authorities were actively interested in the Appellant as he alleges, his name would have been included in the Golden Shield and the reason he was able to safely exit China was because he is not wanted by the Chinese authorities and that they have no active interest in the Appellant. (c) Corruption in China [28] As previously noted, the Appellant neither testified nor indicated in his BOC that his smuggler bribed police or airport authorities to facilitate his exit from China. Nonetheless, in his submissions, the Appellant argues that the smuggler may have been able to assist the Appellant bypass the authorities and exit China due to the existence of corruption. [29] First, I find the Appellant's submission in this regard to be speculative and unsupported by the evidence. While the Chinese authorities may not uniformly apply the rules, in the Appellant's specific circumstances, the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the reason he was able to exit China was because his smuggler bribed corrupt officials. [30] While there is documentary evidence that indicates that corruption exists within the police force in China, which the RPD correctly pointed out, and that authorities in China do not always apply regulations evenly, I find that the preponderance of the documentary evidence states that authorities at borders conduct thorough screenings.17 Further, based on my review of the documentary evidence, there is insufficient evidence in the NDP which establishes that corruption extends to the Chinese airport security apparatus.18 [31] Further, even though the evidence states that corrupt practices are evident in many areas of Chinese society, in particular at the local level, most sources agree that corruption problems are concentrated in sectors with extensive state involvement, such as construction, land use, real estate, mining, and infrastructure development.19 [32] Also, recent corruption scandals have uncovered a number of cases where current and former government, Chinese Communist Party, 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.20 Additionally, I note that the current government has launched: ...an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign that has ensnared high-level leaders such as Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang, a campaign to encourage ideological orthodoxy in state agencies, universities, the media and the blogosphere, and a rule-of-law campaign emphasizing greater adherence to rules both inside and outside of the Party.21 [33] I find that this is an indication that the Chinese government is monitoring government officials. [34] Further, I find the Appellant's reliance on Huang,22 Yao23 and Sun24 unhelpful. Sun is distinguishable from the facts in the present case because there is insufficient evidence that the smuggler in this case bribed any individuals, least of all at each of the security checkpoints. At no point did the Appellant testify that the smuggler bribed the police or airport authorities. While I note that, in Yao, the Court found it was possible for a wanted person to safely exit China using the services of a smuggler; the case does not stand for the proposition that there can be no instances where it is implausible for someone to exit China because of the use of a smuggler. Also, unlike in Yao, where the issue involved the plausibility of a smuggler's ability to obtain a fraudulent passport and assist in bypassing airport security, in this case the Appellant did not dispute the genuineness of his passport or testify that the smuggler made arrangements for him to bypass airport security. Rather, he asserts that the smuggler told him he would not have any problems because he was travelling on documents that contained genuine information. Huang is distinguishable because, in that case, it was found that the RAD had failed to address the role of corruption and bribery in the smuggler's ability to facilitate the claimant's exit through the airport. Again, in this instance, the Appellant provided no evidence that his smuggler bribed airport security authorities. In addition, as discussed, evidence indicates that the Chinese government is cracking down on corruption. [35] Based on the overall evidence including the objective evidence, when considered in light of the Appellant's specific circumstances, I find the Appellant's explanation that he was able to safely exit China on his own genuine passport because he used a smuggler who may have bribed corrupt officials in China is unsupported by the evidence and is not credible. [36] In conclusion, I find that the Appellant has not established that he is of interest to the Chinese authorities given his ability to purchase a train ticket from Tieling to Beijing without difficulty using his own identity documents and travel from Tieling to Beijing without difficulty, and thereafter exiting Beijing International Airport on his own genuine passport. [37] His 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 genuine passport if, as he alleged, he is wanted by the Chinese authorities as a political dissident. Further, I find that the Appellant's ability to exit China undermines his central allegation that he is of interest to the PSB who he alleges sought his arrest on two occasions as a result of his opposition to the inadequate compensation for expropriation of his land and protest of the demolition policy. This finding is also supported by Zen, Su, and Cao, in which the Federal Court has supported findings that traveling unimpeded through Chinese exit controls is inconsistent with being wanted by Chinese authorities.25 I find that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is wanted by the Chinese authorities or that a smuggler helped him safely exit China by bribing authorities. The Appellant's Profile [38] The Appellant argues that there is ample evidence which demonstrates that political dissents or those who oppose the Chinese Communist party's policies are targeted by the authorities. He argues that he engaged in continued and open expression of discontent which included, being one of the leaders; attending the urban planning bureau twice; attending the district government and accusing them of being cold-blooded; submitting a petition letter to the Tieling City government; attempting to stop the demolition where he was physically assaulted and taken away from; and planning to protest at the district government. The Appellant argues that the cumulation of his acts would make him a political dissident, making it plausible he would be targeted. [39] I do not doubt that political dissidents and those opposing the Chinese Communist party's policies are likely considered as enemies of the State and might well be targeted. Even if I accept that the Appellant was one of the leaders, regarding which I note that the Appellant adduced little evidence, the evidence indicates that the Appellant did not oppose State policies or engage in activities such as to make him a political dissident or an enemy of the State. The Appellant opposed a local policy and engaged with the municipal level of government only. [40] The RPD correctly pointed out that his actions in protesting the local government's land expropriation did not reach the State level; he engaged in activities that went to only two levels of local/municipal government; he only wanted higher compensation; there was no evidence that the local government officials felt threatened by his request; he did not accuse officials of corruption; and though he tried to stop the demolition, the PSB was not called. [41] Further, I note the RPD correctly referenced objective documentary evidence that, although citizens hold thousands of protests each year, often concerning land expropriation, the local authorities are normally more concerned with those that take it to the State level, which they try to stop petitioners from doing. In this regard, the RPD noted the following: Although the Chinese government is wary of any form of popular protest and is likely to respond harshly to protests that challenge the state's authority, the majority of these land and industrial protests are based on local issues and directed against local officials. Even when the protests are directed against the state, they rarely challenge the state's authority or right to govern but instead protest against its specific policy as regards wages or land. In general, applicants from this category of claim are unlikely to be seen by the Chinese authorities as having engaged in a political act and are therefore unlikely to engage the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention.26 [42] I find there is no evidence that the Appellant's complaint and disagreement went beyond the local level of government. [43] Based on my independent assessment of the Appellant's specific circumstances, the Appellant's evidence and the objective documentary evidence, I find the type of activities the Appellant engaged in are insufficient to result in him being considered anti-regime, a political opponent, or a political dissident, even when considered cumulatively. As such, I find the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that his profile is that of a political dissident. The Appellant's documents [44] The Appellant argues that the RPD ought to have given more probative value to the petition letter the Appellant submitted. Also, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding the petition did not substantiate that the Appellant clashed with the authorities because the petition letter explicitly illustrates the Appellant's and others discontent with the government policy regarding land appropriation. [45] I am not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. Based on what the documents indicate, they establish that the Appellant likely had his land expropriated and that he tried to negotiate a higher compensation. However, they do not establish, as the Appellant alleges, that he "clashed with authorities" or that he is of interest to the PSB due to any protest against the expropriation and compensation offered to the Appellant. [46] I have reviewed the petition letter addressed to the Tieling City government leaders.27 I find the tone and wording of the letter to be neutral and conciliatory. There was nothing in the letter that could likely be construed as threatening. For instance, after stating the interactions, the Appellant and other owner representatives had with the Yinzhou District Planning Bureau, the letter makes the following appeal to the Tieling City government leaders: When there was no result of negotiation, we could only seek help from the city government leaders, we hoped that the leaders would think about our people's interest, and reconsider the demolition compensation amount. We were willing to cooperate with government's urban construction and development, but at the same time we also wanted the leaders would understand that the compensation amount which offered by the demolition office had huge difference between the market price. We hope that the city government leaders could coordinate and to urge the district government to think about the compensation amount again, which could able us to resettle again, and we could have homes to return to, we hope that the city government could give us an answer as soon as possible.28 [47] Based on my independent assessment of the above-noted document and the land ownership document the Appellant provided, I agree with the RPD that these documents are insufficient and incapable of establishing the Appellant's interactions with the authorities were such that the authorities may have felt threatened to a degree, if at all, to target the Appellant. As such, the documents are insufficient to establish the Appellant's profile as a political dissident wanted by the Chinese authorities. CONCLUSION [48] After conducting my own analysis of the entire record, I find that the RPD did not err in its credibility finding that the Appellant is not wanted by the PSB as a result of his opposition to inadequate compensation for land expropriation and protest against the demolition policy. Further, the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that his profile is that of a political dissident. Consequently, I find that the Appellant does not face more than a mere possibility of persecution if he returned to China. As a result, I find the RPD's determination that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is correct, and I dismiss the appeal. DETERMINATION [49] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) Devika Ratnayake Devika Ratnayake January 12, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 3.3, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada ("IRB"), Response to Information Request ("RIR") CHN104134.E, "Identity documents required to purchase tickets to travel by train, bus or boat; whether authorities check the identity of train travellers during their travel through China", December 6, 2012. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD's Reasons, at p. 8. 3 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 3.3, IRB, RIR CHN104134.E. 4 Ibid., item 3.3, IRB, RIR CHN104134.E. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 28, paras. 10 and 13. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 46. 7 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, from 00:15:53 to 00:24:00. 8 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:17:00. 9 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:18:01. 10 Audio Recording of the RPD Hearing, at 00:23:19. 11 NDP for China (October 31, 2017) at item 12.8, IRB, RIR CHN105283.E, "Whether a person detained at an underground church meeting would have his or her name placed in the Public Security Bureau (PSB) databases", September 23, 2015, at p. 2. 12 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 14.3, IRB, 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)", March 6, 2014. 13 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 14.15, IRB, RIR CHN105153.E, "Passenger information gathered by airlines for international flights to and from China (2014-2015)", March 31, 2015. 14 Ibid., item 14.15, IRB, RIR CHN105153.E. 15 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 10.4, IRB, 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)", March 7, 2014, at pp. 4-5. 16 Ibid., item 10.4, IRB, RIR CHN104762.E, at p. 5. 17 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 16.3, IRB, RIR CHN105049.E, September 22, 2015, at pp. 7-8; item 14.3 (supra footnote 12), item 14.8, IRB, RIR CHN105054.E, February 2, 2015; item 14.11, IRB, RIR CHN104782.E, February 6, 2014; and item 14.15 (supra footnote 13). 18 Ibid. 19 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 1.7, United Kingdom Home Office, "Operational Guidance Note: China", December 2014, at pp. 4, 6, 15, 41, and 44; item 2.1, US Department of State, "China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong and Macau), Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016", March 3, 2017, at pp. 47-48; item 2.3, US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, "II. Human Rights. III. Development of the Rule of Law. Congressional-Executive Commission on China Annual Report 2017", October 5, 2017, at p. 172; item 2.12, Austrian Red Cross, Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation, "China: COI Compilation", March 2014, at pp. 17-18, 121, 148, and 152; item 2.7, Freedom House, "China: Freedom in the World 2017", 2017, at p. 10; item 7.1, DLA Piper, "A signal of further reform: China amends its anti-bribery laws - key highlights", December 10, 2015, at pp. 2-3. 20 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 3.22, IRB, RIR CHN104579.E, "Fraudulent documents, including the manufacturing, procurement, distribution and use of passports, hukou, and resident identity cards (RICs), particularly in Guangdong and Fujian; ...", October 21, 2013. 21 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 4.8, The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, "Civic Freedom Monitor: China", June 9, 2017, at p. 2. 22 Huang, Guimei v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-53-17), Russell, August 10, 2017, 2017 FC 762. 23 Yao, Jianfei v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5029-15), Locke, August 12, 2016, 2016 FC 927. 24 Sun, Hongxin v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-8088-13), de Montigny, March 27, 2015, 2015 FC 387. 25 Zeng, Weili v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2337-13), O'Keefe, November 12, 2014, 2014 FC 1060; Su, Jialu v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4968-14), Fothergill, May 25, 2015, 2015 FC 666; Cao, Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6248-13), Noël, March 12, 2015, 2015 FC 315. 26 NDP for China (October 31, 2017), item 1.7, United Kingdom Home Office, "Operational Guidance Note: China", December 2014, at p. 44, para. 3.15.15. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 168-169. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 169. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14566 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français