TB9-23232

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-23232 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 27, 2020 Date de la décision Panel K. Qureshi Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Shelley S. Levine 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 (Appellant) is a citizen of China. The Appellant makes the following allegations. The Appellant states that he was a XXXX XXXX in China since January 2012. In August 2015, he was sent a notice that his land was going to be expropriated in XXXX 2015 for the construction of XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellant did not think the compensation the government offered him was sufficient and he obtained his own appraisal. The Appellant and other members of the community decided to demand that the government increase the compensation. They drafted a petition and went to government offices, but their requests were denied. As a result, they decided to block the road to their village. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, the expropriation team arrived along with policemen and, after a confrontation and protest, the police began to arrest people. The Appellant escaped and hid at his paternal aunt's house. The next day, XXXX XXXX, 2015, he was informed by his wife that the Public Security Bureau (PSB) had come looking for him and left a chuanpiao/subpoena. Accordingly, the Appellant used a smuggler in order to leave China. [2] The Appellant's claim was originally heard in 2016. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (the Minister) intervened on the grounds of credibility. Specifically, the Minister expressed doubts as to the Appellant's claim that he was pursued by the PSB, and rather, that he had applied for and received a new passport in August 2019, even before the alleged expropriation, as part of an elaborate scheme to travel to Canada. The claim was rejected. On appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) the claim was remitted back to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). The claim was heard a second time on July 18, 2019 and rejected on August 27, 2019 on the basis of credibility. The Appellant has appealed. [3] The Appellant does not submit new evidence or request an oral hearing. DECISION [4] 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. ANALYSIS [5] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 [6] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by, a. making adverse inference over the fact that he had an electronic record of his first passport;2 b. failing to fully analyze the issue of the expropriation, and failing to analyze and make findings on documents;3 c. making a speculative finding regarding the summons and PSB pursuit.4 RPD did not err by drawing an adverse inference from the Appellant having an electronic copy of his passport [7] The Minister intervened in the Appellant's claim regarding his credibility.5 Specifically, the Minister alleged that the Appellant retained a smuggler who digitally altered his first passport by adding a false travel history and then submitted it to the Canadian authorities as part of his application for a visa. On the basis of the Appellant's false travel history, the visa was granted. Meanwhile, the Appellant had already obtained a new second passport on XXXX XXXX, 2015 under the pretence that his first passport was lost. The smuggler then submitted this new second passport for the actual affixing of the Canadian visa. The Appellant does not dispute these facts. However, the Minister goes on to say that the reason why the Appellant had applied for and received a new passport in XXXX 2015, which was before he was even wanted by the PSB, was because he had been planning to travel to Canada all along. The Minister concluded that the Appellant's story that he was being persecuted was manufactured in order to try to obtain status once he arrived in Canada. The RPD agreed with the Minister's submissions and further commented that it was "...highly suspicious and convenient that the claimant lost his previous passport but would have a digital scan of the passport ready for a smuggler to alter without even knowing he would need a smuggler...."6 The Appellant argues in this appeal that keeping electronic records of documents is "extremely common behavior" and that the RPD's inference was unreasonable.7 [8] Based on my independent assessment, I do not find that the RPD erred. While I agree that it is not uncommon to keep digital records of some documents, including portions of a passport such as the photo and identification page, I do not find that it is "extremely common behavior" to keep a digital copy of an entire passport and, specifically, every single blank page in perfect order, unless there was a need to submit it for official purposes, like obtaining a visa. In the absence of needing it for official purposes, I find that making a digital copy of every single page of a passport would be even less likely when a person does not regularly travel, or does not have any specific upcoming travels plans. In the Appellant's situation, it was his evidence that before he came to Canada, he had only ever travelled once outside of China in his entire life, and that it was quite a while ago.8 He also did not testify of having any specific travel plans. I therefore find that the RPD did not err. Appellant has not established that he is being pursued by the PSB [9] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to fully analyze his claim and the documents he submitted with respect to the expropriation, such as the lease, expropriation notice, appraisal, summons or petition.9 I have reviewed the RPD decision which indicates that the Appellant's testimony was unsure and hesitant with respect to the expropriation. The RPD did not accept that the Appellant's vagueness could be explained solely from the fact that four years had elapsed since the events happened.10 While I agree that the RPD did not engage in a fulsome discussion of this element of the Appellant's claim, based on my independent assessment below, I do not find that the RPD erred in its ultimate conclusion that the Appellant is not credible. [10] First, I accept that the Appellant is a XXXX XXXX. He was generally able to answer questions regarding his XXXX XXXX such as how much he invested and what the money went towards.11 The Appellant also provided a copy of the original lease contract, which I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of.12 Similarly, I also accept that the appraisal13 is genuine as it is detailed and does not have any obvious errors. [11] However, while I accept that the Appellant is XXXX XXXX XXXX and that XXXX XXXX is worth XXXX XXXX XXXX yuan, as per the information in the lease and appraisal, I do not accept that the Appellant is being sought by the PSB for the following reasons. [12] First, I find that when the Appellant was questioned regarding what actions he took in response to the expropriation notice, his testimony was vague and evasive. For example, the RPD raised to the Appellant that his Basis of Claim (BOC) said he must clear out of his property by XXXX XXXX, 2015, but that the Expropriation Notice said XXXX XXXX, 2015.14 The Appellant responded that he did not understand. The RPD clarified the fact that there were two discrepant dates. The Appellant's answer was not responsive to the question, simply saying that XXXX XXXX was when the government came to see if they had left the land or not. The RPD repeated to the Appellant the information that he wrote in his narrative. The Appellant then responded that he cannot remember. The RPD again sought clarification. The Appellant responded maybe he made a mistake when he wrote it. [13] Based on my independent assessment, I have reviewed the Appellant's narrative which says "...we were told that we must move out on or before Sept. 15, 2015...."15 Contrarily, the Expropriation Notice says the Appellant had to "...clear your belongings before Sept. 19, 2015...."16 I find that the discrepancy in the dates is significant as this goes to the heart of the claim that he is being persecuted for resisting the expropriation. I also do not find the Appellant's explanation that he made a mistake to be adequate. He signed his BOC on November 13, 201517 - only 3 months after the expropriation notice was allegedly served. As well, the Appellant had the opportunity to affirm that his BOC was true, complete and correct at the hearing, and he was represented by counsel. I therefore draw a negative inference from this discrepancy with respect to the Appellant's allegations, and his overall credibility. [14] I have also reviewed the police document allegedly served on the Appellant's wife which is a subpoena, or chuanpiao.18 According to the National Documentation Package (NDP), the subpoena has not varied in format since 2003, and that "...such forms are supposed to be used throughout the country and that 'regional variations are not meant to exist.'"19 [citation omitted] I have closely examined the subpoena and I find that it differs from the sample contained within the NDP.20 For example, rows 3 and 4 of the left column have different characters and fewer characters than in the sample. The third character from the left in row 7 of the left column is also different from the sample. The fonts of the two documents also appear to differ. In the body of the subpoena, there is a list consisting of numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 and only lines 1 and 2 are completed. However, in the sample, the list is only three numbers long, 1, 2, and 3, and all three lines are completed. Specifically, the Appellant's subpoena is missing the phrase in #3, which should say "Upon receipt of the summons, the summoned person should sign or affix the personal seal on the delivery acknowledgment." Finally, while there are 8 characters at the very bottom left of the Appellant's subpoena, this differs from the sample which has 11 characters and are different. In Jiang, the court found that small differences can be relevant in the assessment of a document. With regards to a PSB summons, the court said: In my view, it may very well be reasonably open to the RAD or another decision maker to question the authenticity of a document based on very small or even microscopic differences between the document and an authentic counterpart. It is in the small or microscopic details where a forgery may well be exposed.21 [15] On the basis of the foregoing, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the subpoena submitted by the Appellant is fraudulent. As I have determined that the subpoena is not genuine and the Appellant is not credible, I find that he is not being pursued by the PSB, and that he does not face a serious possibility of persecution if he returned to China, and that this is determinative of the Appellant's claim. [16] Overall, I find that the RPD correctly concluded that the Appellant is not credible, and that he does not face a serious possibility of persecution or a personalized risk to his life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture. CONCLUSION [17] 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) Kiran Qureshi K. Qureshi July 27, 2020 Date 1Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellant Memorandum, at pp. 14-15, paras. 18-22. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellant Memorandum, at pp. 15-16, paras. 23-25. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellant Memorandum, at p. 16, paras. 27-28. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 153-157. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 6, para. 13. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellant Memorandum, at pp. 14-15, paras. 18-22. 8 RPD Hearing Recording, July 18, 2019, at 01:28. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, Appellant Memorandum, at pp. 15-16, paras. 23-25. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 7, para. 17. 11 RPD Hearing Recording, July 18, 2019, at 00:32-00:36. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 194-197. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 200-203. 14 RPD Hearing Recording, July 18, 2019, at 00:49-00:55. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 19. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 198. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 18. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 206. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, 29 March 2019, Item 9.10, Response to Information Request (RIR) CHN104458.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 18 October 2013, at p. 1. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China, 29 March 2019, Item 9.2, RIR CHN106016.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 9 February 2018. 21 Jiang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1064 (CanLII), at para. 31. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-23232 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