TB8-30999

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-30999 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 30, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Kimberley Foreman Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Lindsey K Weppler 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 INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of China. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated October 29, 2018, denying his claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant submits that the RPD was unreasonable and not transparent in its findings. The Appellant did not submit any new evidence and requests a new hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) in the event that the case is not returned to a differently-constituted panel before the RPD. However, without the admission of new evidence, the Appellant does not meet the requirements necessary for a new hearing under section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA or Act). DETERMINATION [3] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. Background of the Claim [4] The Appellant alleges that he fears persecution in China based upon his political opinion. The Appellant and his father lived in an apartment building in China together. On September 1, 2016, the company that owned their building sold their unit and sent them a notice that their apartment would be demolished for a new apartment complex. They were given two weeks to leave their unit. [5] The Appellant was offered 80,000 RMB for their unit and another 2,000 RMB as a monthly housing maintenance until their new unit was constructed. Due to the fact that their unit had recently been renovated, the Appellant did not believe the offer was fair. The city government kept sending representatives to get the Appellant to sign the contract. Their home was vandalized. [6] The apartment owners planned a protest on November 11, 2016. Approximately 40 people, along with the Appellant, went to the local government to protest the demolition and level of compensation. The police attended and threatened the protestors with arrest. Some were arrested, and the Appellant left. A few months later, the residents went to protest to an upper government department and were stopped by police. They were told they were on a list and could be arrested if they made trouble. [7] The demolition of the building took place in May 2017. The Appellant's father was concerned that he was on a watch list and was no longer safe in China. The Appellant hired a smuggler who assisted him in leaving China. He arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX2017. The police approached his father about his whereabouts a few days after his departure. Additional residents were arrested. The Appellant made a claim for protection. He fears persecution if he were to return to China, based on his political opinion. Role of the RAD [8] When reviewing the RPD decision, the panel is required to independently assess all the evidence and determine whether the RPD erred in relation to each error of law, fact or mixed fact and law. For this assessment, the panel has applied the standard of correctness as per the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Huruglica.1 ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL The Hukou [9] The Appellant argues that the RPD was unreasonable in its findings regarding his credibility, and was not transparent or justified in its decision. After a review of the Record and the audio recording, I disagree. [10] The Appellant provided the RPD with a copy of his new Hukou, or household register, issued on December 1, 2017.2 This Hukou that is provided shows the Appellant's address in China as "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.," the address of the apartment that was allegedly demolished in May of 2017, some five months prior to issue. The Hukou also contains this address as the home of the Appellant's father, whom he testified as living with family since the alleged demolition. [11] The principal Appellant was questioned as to why this Hukou, issued after the demolition of his building, would include the address of a building that has been demolished and where he no longer lives. The Appellant testified that the Public Security Bureau (PSB) just reissued the register to the old address. [12] Due to the issuance of a new Hukou in December of 2017, five months after the alleged demolition of the building, I draw a negative credibility inference relating to the central allegation that the Appellant's home in China was demolished. Lack of Corroborating Documentation [13] The Appellant has provided a series of photographs that show his alleged apartment, its demolition, and the rebuild. These documents are not time-stamped, and have no identifying features that could corroborate that these were photos of his home. They could be photographs of anyone's home, taken at any time. I therefore provide these documents no weight. [14] The Appellant did not provide a copy of his notice of eviction, or the contract he was asked to sign to be compensated for his home. He was asked by the RPD why he did not have a copy of this notice, and he testified he was never given a copy. The RPD noted that in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, he stated the notice was "sent" to him. When asked about this inconsistency, the Appellant testified that the notice wasn't given to him at one point, and then at another he stated that the notice and contract was sent, but because he never signed the contract, he was never given the notice. When the Appellant's counsel asked him if he ever had a copy of the notice; he said it was only shown to him. [15] I find the Appellant's explanation regarding his evolving and inconsistent testimony to not be credible. His narrative clearly states the notice of eviction was sent to him; in the same narrative, he states that the city government was sending officials to get them to sign the contract. There was a clear delineation between these two documents. His explanation fails to credibly address this inconsistency of why he was unable to obtain a copy for his claim for protection. [16] The RPD also asked the Appellant if he had any documentation to support that he and his father owned the apartment in question. He testified he did, but the document was in the possession of his father in China. The Appellant apparently made no efforts to obtain the document for the purpose of his claim. [17] The Appellant indicated that he was sent an eviction notice, but never signed the document; however, he gave inconsistent testimony and no reasonable explanation as to why he did not provide it for his hearing. He also testified that he had proof that they owned the land, but failed to obtain a copy of it from China. I take a negative credibility inference from his failure to do so. The Appellant has provided no credible documents or other evidence to corroborate his eviction from his home in China. While it is not necessary to corroborate sworn credible testimony, in this case, I find the corroborative documentation of the eviction to be reasonably expected, and the absence of any corroborating documents establishing the land expropriation detracts from his overall credibility. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not ordered evicted from his home and is therefore not wanted by the PSB for his political activity, as alleged. CONCLUSION [18] I have found, after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence, that the Appellant is not wanted by the Chinese authorities for his political activity due to land expropriation. I make a further finding that there is not a serious possibility that he 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 the Appellant return to China. [19] The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD. (signed) Kimberley Foreman Kimberley Foreman July 30, 2020 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, pp. 121-126. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-30999 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français