TB8-11545

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-11545 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 November 29, 2019 Date de la décision Panel T. Cheung Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Stacey Margaret Duong 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] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX, a citizen of China, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated April 18, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant claimed a fear of persecution by the Public Security Bureau (PSB) for his religious activities in the Church of the Almighty God (the Church). Introduced to the Church by a friend, the Appellant started to attend a house Church on XXXX XXXX, 2015. While the Appellant was at a Church service, the leader of the Church alerted the attendees that the PSB was approaching the house. The Appellant escaped and went into hiding at a relative's home. Two days later, the Appellant learned that the PSB had searched for him at his home, and had interrogated his parents about his illegal religious activities. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the PSB returned to the Appellant's home and left a summons for the Appellant to report to the PSB. In XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the Appellant was terminated from his employment for reason of his illegal religious activities. The PSB continued to look for the Appellant. The Appellant left China on XXXX XXXX, 2017 with the assistance of a smuggler. After arriving in Canada, the Appellant alleged that the PSB continues to pursue him in China, and that his friend and two other members of the Church were arrested in China.1 [3] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada intervened in writing at the RPD hearing on the issue of credibility. The RPD's Decision [4] The RPD rejected the claim on the following basis: a. The RPD found that the Appellant exited China via the Beijing International Airport to Toronto on his own genuine passport without any difficulties because he was not wanted by the Chinese authorities. The RPD relied on the China Jurisprudential Guide (JG), which was revoked on June 28, 2019, to arrive at this conclusion.2 b. The Appellant was not a genuine follower of the Church because he exhibited superficial knowledge of the religion.3 c. The RPD doubted the veracity of the documentary evidence. In particular, the summons and the letter of support from the fellow worshipper in Canada were found to have insufficient probative value to overcome the credibility concerns.4 d. The Appellant does not have a sur place claim because his religious activities in Canada have not come to the attention of the authorities in China.5 The Appellant's arguments at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [5] The Appellant made the following arguments on appeal: a. The RPD misapprehended the objective country evidence which led to the erroneous finding that the Appellant would not have been able to exit China if he was wanted by the authorities. This error is fatal to the RPD's decision.6 b. Given the Appellant's nine years of formal education, he fits the profile of a believer with a low level of literacy who would not be concerned with doctrine or scripture and would believe in whatever is "efficacious". The RPD should have focused on the sincerity of the Appellant's belief and given him the benefit of the doubt with respect to his religious knowledge.7 c. The RPD failed to conduct a proper analysis of the summons: the availability of fraudulent documents in China does not mean that every document that comes from China is necessarily fraudulent.8 DETERMINATION [6] The Appellant did not rely on new evidence at the RAD. Nor did he request a hearing at the RAD. [7] 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 section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). ROLE OF THE RAD [8] The standard of review at the RAD is correctness on questions of law, fact, or mixed fact and law.9 The RAD can defer to an RPD finding where the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral testimony.10 The RAD carries out its own analysis of the record, on a correctness standard, to determine whether the RPD erred.11 Unless otherwise stated, the standard of review of this RPD decision is correctness. THE RAD'S INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE RECORD Genuineness of the Appellant's religious identity [9] I concur with the Appellant's arguments that the central issue in this appeal is the genuineness of the Appellant's religious beliefs. For the reasons that follow, I find the Appellant did not exhibit a sincerity of belief in his religion. I find the RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant's knowledge of the religion is vague and superficial. [10] In the RAD's independent review of the evidence, I am guided by the following principles on the assessment of the genuineness of religious beliefs: a. An inquiry into religious beliefs must be approached with caution because of the subjective and personal nature of such beliefs. A claimant invoking freedom of religion need not prove their beliefs are recognized as valid from an objective standard, but rather it is the sincerity of the person's beliefs or practices that matters. Sincerity of belief implies an honesty of belief. Such an inquiry is a question of fact.12 b. The Board should not adopt an unrealistically high standard of knowledge or focus on a few points of error or misunderstanding that amounts to a microscopic analysis.13 c. The Board should consider the claimant's education, and not fault a poorly educated claimant for being unable to identify a passage dealing with a particular ceremony or ritual in the claimant's holy book.14 d. The actions of claimants from diverse cultures may appear implausible when judged from Canadian standards, but might be plausible in the claimant's milieu.15 e. Be mindful that the claimant may be "struggling to understand and be understood through an interpreter".16 [11] I am mindful not to adopt a high standard of knowledge of the religion that is unrealistic17 for the Appellant who has nine years of formal education.18 That said, the assessment of the sincerity of belief cannot be conducted in the absence of a requisite level of religious knowledge. In order to assess the sincerity of the Appellant's belief, it is incumbent on the Appellant to demonstrate a minimal baseline of knowledge that is commensurate with the profile of the Appellant, given the level of his education and literacy. [12] After an independent assessment of the record, I uphold the RPD's finding that the Appellant's knowledge was vague and superficial.19 The RPD's findings on the Appellant's religious identity is correct.20 Objective evidence [13] One of the core tenets of the Church is the three eras of Law, Grace and Kingdom:21 i. The Age of Law corresponds with the Old Testament in which God was called Jehovah. ii. The Age of Grace, in which God was called "Jesus", encompasses the time from the birth of Jesus until the advent of the Female Jesus. iii. The Age of the Kingdom is the present age in which the Female Jesus is working to transform people's nature. The mission in the present Age of the Kingdom is also referred to as "the work of conquering" or "the work of perfecting".22 [14] According to the Response to Information Request (RIR) CHN104970.E that was cited by the Appellant, "all adherents of the Church of Almighty God would be familiar" with the following beliefs of the religion: i. the belief that God has returned as an ordinary Chinese woman who speaks God's word starting in or about 1991; ii. the Communist Party is the "big red dragon" described in the Book of Revelation, and is an incarnation of Satan to persecute God's chosen people; the dragon will be vanquished; iii. unbelievers, including Christians, are destined to hell and may be punished in their lifetimes by lightening strikes, illness, accidents and other misfortunes. [15] The Appellant did not mention in his testimony any concepts that are similar to the foregoing beliefs. [16] I have considered the objective evidence in RIR CHN104970.E that was cited in the Appellant's arguments that Chinese believers tend to believe in "whatever seems to work for them" and are not always concerned about the nuances in doctrine and scripture due to the low level of literacy: Scholars of religion often observe that Chinese believers tend to believe in whatever is efficacious (i.e., whatever seems to work for them). They are not always concerned about the finer points of doctrine / scripture, and many adherents are reported to have a low level of literacy.23 [17] Based on my review of the testimony at the RPD hearing, I find the RPD conducted the questioning of the Appellant's sincerity of belief in a manner that was appropriate given the Appellant's level of education. The RPD's manner of questioning throughout the hearing did not focus on the finer points of doctrine or scripture. Rather, the RPD member asked the Appellant open-ended questions, giving him the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of the religion. [18] Yet, despite given the opportunities to demonstrate the sincerity of his belief, the Appellant's testimony was cursory and unconvincing of a genuine believer who has purportedly practiced the religion for two and a half years since XXXX 2015 (according to the Basis of Claim [BOC] narrative) to the time of the RPD hearing on XXXX XXXX, 2018. Appellant's testimony [19] There is insufficient clear, cogent and convincing evidence to meet the test of a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was sincere when he participated in the activities of the Church in Canada. The totality of the evidence related to the Appellant's activities in the Church in Canada is not credible. [20] The Appellant testified that he attended service at the house church in China more than 70 times. During the Church services, he would pray and exchange views with the other believers.24 In Canada, he attended more than 20 Church services.25 The purported leader of the Church wrote that the Appellant prays, learns, eats and drinks God's words with other believers, and he evangelizes outside the Church.26 The Appellant testified that he prays and sings songs at the Church services in Canada. He has read only one-third of the Words Appear in the Flesh27 - the canonical text of the religion since arriving in Canada.28 When asked about the contents of this text, he testified to knowing God; God comes to this world to deliver the sinners; and to believing and following God.29 He has read no other religious texts because he does not possess any other texts.30 [21] The Appellant submitted photographs of himself either reading alone or with other Church members.31 When asked about the book he is reading in the photograph, he testified that he is reading a book about Almighty God; but he could not name the title of the book because he had only borrowed the book for one day.32 I find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not reading the unnamed book as an act of sincere belief, but rather, he borrowed the book for the purpose of posing for the photographs of him reading the book in order to support the refugee claim.33 I base this finding on his inability to name the title of the book which he borrowed for a day; his testimony that he has read no other texts other than a portion of Words Appear in the Flesh;34 and, the hesitation and the lack of knowledge exhibited in the Appellant's testimony about the photographs.35 Even though the Appellant has only nine years of education, he would still be able to read basic texts: the level of education does not address the inconsistencies in the testimony and the photographic evidence as to what texts he has read. Therefore, I assign no weight to the photographs presented as proof of religious activity in Canada. [22] The Appellant's knowledge of the faith in his testimony is not commensurate with the nature and frequency of the religious activity. For example, when the RPD asked the Appellant to state a core tenet of the religion, the Appellant testified that one must follow and have faith in God; do not do anything against the will of God; do not cheat; and listen to the Holy Spirit.36 The Appellant later briefly identified the three ages of Law (Old Testament), Grace (New Testament), and the present age of the Kingdom. However, when asked about what distinguishes the age of Kingdom from the other ages, he did not describe anything resembling a Female Jesus as the distinguishing characteristic.37 [23] The vagueness and the lack of spontaneity in the Appellant's testimony when answering questions about his knowledge of the Church calls into question the Appellant's learning of the religion and how he would evangelize outside the Church, as such are the religious activities stated in the letter of support from the Church leader in Toronto.38 Therefore, I assign little weight to the Appellant's testimony pertaining his knowledge of the religion, and I assign no weight to the letter of support from the Church leader in Toronto. [24] In summary, I assign little weight to the testimony on religious knowledge and no weight to the documentary evidence related to the Appellant's activities in the Church in Canada. The totality of the evidence related to the Appellant's activities in the Church in Canada is not credible. There is insufficient clear, cogent and convincing evidence to meet the test of a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was sincere when he participated in the activities of the Church in Canada. Since the Appellant has been determined to lack credibility with respect to his religious beliefs, I also find his testimony lacks credibility as it pertains to his religious identity in China, including the PSB's pursuit of him for engaging in illegal religious activity; and his intention to continue practicing the religion upon his return to China.39 Summons has little probative value [25] The Appellant argued that the availability of fraudulent documents in China does not mean that every document that comes from China is necessarily fraudulent.40 While this argument has merit, I uphold the RPD's negative credibility finding about the notice of termination and the summons for different reasons than those cited by the RPD. [26] I find the notice of termination and the summons are not probative of the central issue in this appeal, that being the genuineness of the Appellant's religious beliefs. The notice of termination and the summons carry no weight in establishing the sincerity of religious belief if the Appellant's testimony is not credible about his religious activity in China and the PSB's pursuit of him. [27] Moreover, in assessing the authenticity of the summons, it is not possible to ascertain with any accuracy whether the photocopy of the summons in the documentary evidence conforms with the physical description of a summons in item 9.11 of the National Documentation Package (NDP).41 The photocopy of the summons does not show the bottom edge of the summons within the confines of the standard letter size page. The dimensions of the outer edges of the summons is unknown, rendering it unascertainable whether the margins of the summons conform with the description in item 9.11 of the NDP.42 Therefore, the lack of reliability of the photocopy of the summons leads the RAD to give it no weight in determining whether the Appellant is wanted by authorities. The Appellant's exit from China via the Beijing International Airport [28] Any findings related to the Appellant's ability to exit China is dependent on the individual facts of each case.43 As the JG on China was revoked on June 28, 2019, I rely on the objective country evidence found in the NDP. For the reasons that follow, I find the objective evidence is inconclusive on the issue of the Appellant's ability to exit China if an agent facilitates the exit by taking advantage of variances in airport exit procedures. [29] I find the Appellant's ability to exit China is a neutral consideration because the Appellant's testimony on his exit was scant. The Appellant was assisted by an agent to leave China through the Beijing International Airport using his own genuine passport.44 The Appellant testified that the agent likely bribed the customs officials so that he would not encounter any problems leaving China even though he was wanted by the PSB at the time of his departure.45 He does not know if his passport was scanned at the airport, as he did not see it scanned.46 [30] The RPD determined that the Appellant did not have difficulty passing through airport security using his own identity documents because he was not wanted by the Chinese authorities. The RPD relied on the China JG to assess the Appellant's particular circumstances.47 The RPD referenced the examination of passports at the airports, the efficiency of the Chinese authorities, the Golden Shield Project, Policenet, and the use of facial recognition at Beijing and Guangzhou airports in China. The RPD correctly acknowledged the existence of "systematic corruption" in China; that airport officials can be bribed; and the variances in the application of regulations by Chinese authorities. However, the RPD preferred the documentary evidence that citizen's exits from China are closely monitored and screened over the testimony that the smuggler facilitated his travel.48 [31] The RAD's independent review affirms the RPD's finding that passports are examined more than once for international travel at Chinese airports.49 A person departing from China may be requested to show their passport at four checkpoints: 1) upon check-in at the airline check-in counter, by airline staff; 2) when passing through security into the secure transit area, by airport security staff; 3) at departure immigration, by immigration officers; and 4) at the boarding gate when boarding the aircraft, by airline staff. [32] The passport is scanned at two of these checkpoints: at the airline check-in counter and at the immigration departure counter. The airline ticket is also scanned when entering the "secure transit area" and at the airline boarding gate.50 A source at an airline indicated that a person's passport is scanned upon check-in to gather advanced passenger information (API). Passengers leaving China must pass through exit immigration control points where passengers are seen by Chinese immigration agents prior to approaching the boarding gate.51 [33] A source at the International Air Transport Association (IATA) indicated that, to the best their knowledge, the departure procedure at airports in China seems to involve three steps: check-in, immigration and security. Passengers at each checkpoint are required to show their passports. At check-in, API is usually inputted manually or by scanning the passport. At the immigration checkpoint, there is a physical inspection of the passport. At the security checkpoint, the passport information is matched with the boarding card for verification, either using barcode readers on the boarding pass or with a visual check.52 [34] The RAD's independent assessment found that although the general concept of departure procedures at Chinese airports is the same, each airport varies in its departure procedures.53 The RPD misconstrued the evidence in its over-generalization that facial recognition is used on passengers at the Beijing International Airport.54 At the Beijing airport, facial recognition technology is not used on passengers, and passengers do not have their photographs taken. The only facial recognition procedure applied to passengers is a comparison of the photo in the travel document with the passenger's face. The use of facial recognition technology at the Beijing airport is limited to monitoring airport staff and flight crew when they occupy particular areas of the airport.55 [35] Although the Chinese authorities have used exit controls to deny foreign travel to some dissidents and government officials, the objective evidence also gives examples of travellers employing fraudulent means to evade border security controls, which support the possibility of circumventing exit controls at Chinese airports.56 [36] The RPD correctly noted the existence of corruption, the possibility of airport officials being bribed, and the inconsistent application of regulations by Chinese authorities as factors facilitating the circumvention of exit controls.57 [37] Moreover, there needs to be a "written notification" from the Highest People's Court to prevent persons from departing through entry-exit ports, and there must be coordination with the respective public security organ.58 It is unclear from the objective evidence whether the "written notification" is given to the individual affected by the exit ban. Chinese secrecy laws render it "extraordinarily difficult" to obtain accurate information on exit controls at Chinese airports and information-sharing between security networks in China. State secret laws remain vague and subject to the discretion of Communist Party officials.59 [38] I find the foregoing objective country evidence is inconclusive as to whether a person subject to a summons would have been absolutely prevented from exiting the country. It is conceivable that a person can circumvent exit controls if a smuggler is used to take advantage of variances in exit procedures and to circumvent security measures at airports. That said, I find the Appellant's ability to exit China is a neutral consideration because his testimony on his exit was lacking in detail. Sur place claim [39] The Appellant's arguments addressed his overall religious identity and not the RPD's negative finding in regards to the sur place claim. Notwithstanding, it is incumbent on the RAD to review the RPD's determination of the sur place claim to determine the choice of remedy under section 111 of IRPA. [40] In order to establish a sur place claim, the Appellant must demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution, such that there is a "reasonable chance" or a serious possibility, as opposed to a minimal or mere possibility, that he will be persecuted.60 Although negative credibility findings can be imported into the sur place claim,61 a sur place claim cannot be rejected solely due to a lack of credibility or an improper motive in the main claim, without an assessment of the genuineness of the claimant's religious practice in Canada, to determine if he will be at risk if returned to the country of origin.62 [41] The Appellant testified that his activities in Canada have consisted of distributing flyers on three occasions, and, attending Church service every Sunday on more than 20 occasions.63 I assign little weight to this testimony as probative of a genuine belief in the Church, given the Appellant's credibility has been impugned on the basis of his minimal religious knowledge which rebutted the presumption of truth of his testimony.64 There is also no evidence that the Appellant's religious activities in Canada have come to the attention of the authorities in China. [42] The Appellant presented a letter from the Church leader in Toronto,65 and three photographs of him reading a book, either alone or with people. 66 For the reasons given above, I assign no weight to the photographs. I assign no weight to the letter from the Church leader in Toronto67 due to its brevity and lack of meaningful detail that would support a determination that the Appellant is genuine in his religious belief. According to the letter, the leader met the Appellant on XXXX XXXX, 2017 during Church service. The letter is brief in listing the Appellant's religious activities as regular weekly attendance to pray, learn and to eat and drink God's words with other believers, and evangelism. [43] The RPD was correct that the foregoing evidence is insufficient to support a positive sur place claim, as there is insufficient persuasive evidence to support a finding of a sincere belief in the religion. As such, the Appellant has not demonstrated that he would likely continue his faith upon his return to China, that he faces a risk of persecution upon his return to China, or that he is a person in need of protection due to his religious activities in Canada. CONCLUSION [44] 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 section 111(1)(a) of IRPA. (signed) "T. Cheung" T. Cheung November 29, 2019 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Narrative, pp. 17 to 18. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 5 to 9, para. 11 to 21. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 9 to 12, para. 22 to 30. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 13 to 14, para. 31 to 34. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 14, para. 34. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Argument, pp. 31 to 34, para. 1 to 7. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Argument, pp. 34 to 35, para. 8 to 11. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Argument, p. 36, para. 10 to 12. 9 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 10 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 70. 11 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 12 Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1002 (CanLII), para. 12. 13 Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1002 (CanLII), para. 10; Dong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2010 FC 55 at para 20. 14 Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 929 (CanLII), para. 21. 15 Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1002 (CanLII), para. 11; Lin v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FC 288 at para. 61. 16 Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 929 (CanLII), para. 22. 17 Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1002 (CanLII), para. 10; Dong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2010 FC 55 at para 20. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 34, Generic Application Form For Canada. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 10 to 12, para. 27 to 30. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 9 to 12, para. 22 to 30. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, 31 October 2017, item 12.18, Religious texts used by the Church of Almighty God of the Almighty God (Eastern Lightning). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 14 October 2014. CHN104970.E, pp. 5 to 6. 22 Ibid., pp. 2 to 3. 23 Ibid., p. 6. 24 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:27 to 00:29. 25 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:34 to 00:36. 26 RPD Record, pp. 149 to 150, letter dated March 11, 2018. 27 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:37 to 00:41. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, 31 October 2017, item 12.18, Religious texts used by the Church of Almighty God of the Almighty God (Eastern Lightning). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 14 October 2014. CHN104970.E, 29 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:41 to 00:42. 30 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:37 to 00:41. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 151 to 153, photographs. 32 Recording of RPD Hearing, 1:15 to 1:17. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 151 to 153, photographs. 34 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:37 to 00:41. 35 Recording of RPD Hearing, 1:15 to 1:17. 36 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:42 to 00:44. 37 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:45 to 00:46. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 149 to 150, letter dated March 11, 2018. 39 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:46 to 00:53; 00:58 to 01:00. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Argument, p. 36, para. 10 to 12. 41 National Documentation Package, China, 29 March 2019, item 9.11: Circumstances and authorities responsible for issuing summonses/subpoenas; procedural law; whether summonses and subpoenas are given to individuals or households; format and appearance; whether legality can be challenged; penalties for failure to comply with a summons or subpoena. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 30 November 2012. CHN104188.E. 42 National Documentation Package, China, 29 March 2019, item 9.11: Circumstances and authorities responsible for issuing summonses/subpoenas; procedural law; whether summonses and subpoenas are given to individuals or households; format and appearance; whether legality can be challenged; penalties for failure to comply with a summons or subpoena. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 30 November 2012. CHN104188.E. 43 Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 762, para. 66; Jiang 2018 FC 1064 para 25; Yan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 146, para 20. 44 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:08 - 00:11:45. 45 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:12 - 00:14. 46 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:55 - 00:57. 47 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 5 to 9, para. 11 to 21. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 7, para. 17, pp. 8 to 9, para. 19 to 20. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, pp. 5 to 6, para. 13. 50 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 51 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 52 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 53 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada,Response to Information Request . 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 8, para. 18. 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada,Response to Information Request . 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 16.3: Information on electronic/biometric passports, including security features, Radio Frequency ID (RFID) technology and wireless tracking capacity; exit procedures at international airports, including e-passport verification, security checkpoints, and the use of facial recognition technology (2013-2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 22 September 2015. CHN105049.E. 57 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons and Decision, p. 9, para. 19. 58 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Reocrd, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 16.2: Exit controls and security measures at airports for Chinese citizens travelling overseas, including procedures at check points and the use of computerized identity verification; sharing of information with officials at airports (2011-February 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 6 March 2014. CHN104761.E. 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, China, 31 October 2017, item 16.2: Exit controls and security measures at airports for Chinese citizens travelling overseas, including procedures at check points and the use of computerized identity verification; sharing of information with officials at airports (2011-February 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request. 6 March 2014. CHN104761.E. 60 Sebastiao v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2016 FC 803 (CanLII) at para 13. 61 Jiang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1067, para. 27; Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 998 (CanLII), para. 24 to 26; Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 FC 454, para. 25. 62 Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 998 (CanLII), para. 24 to 26; Jin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 595 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 677; El Aoudie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 450 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 487; Hannoon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 448 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 480; Jia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 444 (CanLII), [2012] FCJ No 463; Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 205 (CanLII); Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 614 (CanLII); Yin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 544 (CanLII); Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 677 (CanLII), [2009] FCJ No 1391). 63 Recording of RPD Hearing, 00:34 to 00:36. 64 Sheikh v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1990 CanLII 8017 (FCA), [1990] 3 FC 238. 65 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 149 to 150, letter dated March 11, 2018. 66 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 151 to 153, phtoographs. 67 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 149 to 150, letter dated March 11, 2018. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-11545 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