TC2-30692

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-30692 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision March 2, 2023 Date de la décision Panel Karen Wallace Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Karim Escalona 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 XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Viet Nam. He fears persecution or harm if he returns to Vietnam based on his religious identity as a Christian. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the Appellant's claim because they determined that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. [2] The Appellant is appealing the RPD decision. He argues that the RPD erred in its analysis of his well-founded fear of persecution. [3] No new evidence has been submitted in this appeal. An oral hearing is not requested. The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in their analysis of the Appellant's well-founded fear of persecution. 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. BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS [5] The Appellant and his wife separated in 2016. He was very stressed and sad when his wife left. In XXXX 2017, his cousin spoke to him about Christianity and God's love. In XXXX 2017, the Appellant started attending his cousin's house church and he found that it cheered him up. [6] In XXXX 2019, two members of the Appellant's house church were arrested by the local police and the house church suspended all services. The Appellant decided to leave Vietnam so that he could practice his religion freely. He hired an agent to obtain his Canadian visa. [7] The Appellant came to Canada in XXXX 2020 and applied for refugee protection in July 2020. ANALYSIS [8] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 I have conducted my own assessment of the evidence. This included listening to the recording of the RPD hearing and reviewing all the documents submitted. Well-founded fear of persecution analysis [9] The RPD found the Appellant to be a credible witness, but they did not make an explicit finding about the genuineness of the Appellant's religious identity. The RPD determined that there is no objective basis for the Appellant's fear of persecution. [10] The Appellant engaged in religious activity in Canada, which created a sur place aspect to his claim. His testimony and corroborating documents, including his Baptism certificate,2 a letter from a church in Toronto,3 and photographs of him attending religious events4 establish his baptism and attendance at church. For the purpose of my analysis, I accept that the Appellant is a genuine Christian. [11] The Appellant's religion is the basis for harm and the nexus to a Convention ground for refugee protection. Therefore, I must determine whether the Appellant may face a serious possibility or reasonable chance of persecution if he returns to Vietnam. [12] A person does not meet the definition of a Convention refugee if there is no well-founded fear of persecution. Determining that there is a well-founded fear of persecution involves both a subjective and an objective component. A person must have a fear of persecution if they return to their home country. This is the subjective component. However, there must also be an objective basis for their fear. [13] The existence of both a subjective fear of persecution and an objective basis for that fear are necessary to conclude that there is a well-founded fear of persecution and that the Appellant is a Convention refugee.5 [14] I agree with the RPD that there is insufficient evidence of an objective basis for the Appellant's fear of persecution. Overview of religious freedom in Vietnam [15] The Constitution of Vietnam provides for the right to freedom of belief and religion. Yet, there is significant government regulation over religion in the interest of national security and social unity. Religious denominations and organizations are required to register with, and be recognized by, the government before conducting any religious activities or gatherings. The government recognizes multiple religious denominations and organizations, and Protestantism is the third largest, with about one million followers.6 [16] Registered religious groups do not generally encounter difficulties with the authorities. However, ethnic minority groups in certain areas of Vietnam, such as the Central Highlands, experience a disproportionate level of harassment or persecution for the practice of their faith, even if they become registered. Also, unregistered religious groups and churches report harassment by the authorities, particularly of their religious leaders. There are also reports of land disputes between church leaders and the authorities.7 [17] Government officials do discriminate against, arbitrarily detain, or physically abuse individuals from religious groups. However, the majority of the reports relate to individuals who were also engaged in political or human rights advocacy work, or who had ties to overseas organizations that were critical of the authorities. Due to the links between religion, politics, and ethnicity, human rights organizations stated that it was difficult to categorize the reported incidents of harassment as being based solely on religious identity.8 [18] The International Religious Freedom Report for 2021 states that religious leaders across the country reported improved conditions compared with prior years, such as better relations between unregistered religious groups and local authorities, but they also reported incidents of harassment including police questioning and brief periods of detention. However, members of recognized and registered groups were generally able to practice their beliefs with less government interference.9 There is no well-founded fear of persecution [19] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by not following the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Chan10 when applying the objective part of the test for a well-founded fear of persecution. The Supreme Court stated that a claimant may be able to establish that their fear is objectively well-founded, even in the absence of corroborating documentary evidence, by providing testimony regarding similarly situated individuals. [20] I note that, although the Supreme Court in Chan stated that a claimant can provide testimony regarding similarly situated individuals, the Court also stated that the situation of each person must still be assessed on its own merits. [21] The Appellant argues that the two members of his house church who were arrested by the police are similarly situated individuals. The Appellant provided limited details about the arrest or the outcome. He has no firsthand knowledge of why the two members of his house church were arrested. He was not present. He heard that it was because they were spreading the Gospel, but he does not know how they did so, or what they said. He also does not know the outcome of their arrest, or where they are now. [22] The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Vietnam reports that, in the majority of cases, Christians who were harassed or persecuted in Vietnam were also members of minority ethnic groups, or lived in rural areas, or were leaders of a church, or engaged in political activity that was critical of the government. There is insufficient evidence of the circumstances that led to the arrest of the two house church members, such as their ethnicity or whether they were engaging in activity that was critical of the authorities when they were spreading the Gospel. Therefore, I am unable to determine that the house church members are similarly situated people or rely on their arrest to conclude that the Appellant could be at risk if he returns to Vietnam. The Appellant's cousin was a member of the same house church and is a similarly situated person. He has remained in Vietnam, and he has not been arrested or experienced problems with the authorities. [23] The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred by failing to consider legislation that came into effect in 2018 (The Law on Belief and Religion) which controls religious activity by requiring registration of religious groups. He further argues that registration requirements are burdensome and complex. They are applied unevenly and inconsistently across the country and create an obstacle to practicing religion in Vietnam. It is unclear from the Appellant's argument how this law requiring registration of religious groups impacts his particular circumstances. The Federal Court has consistently found that country condition evidence alone is insufficient to support a claim for refugee protection. It is not sufficient to rely on country condition evidence without linking this information to the Appellant's personal circumstances.11 [24] The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred in its analysis of the country conditions evidence. I disagree. The RPD acknowledged that the Vietnamese government restricts religious freedom, and that Christians can face mistreatment by the authorities. However, considering the Appellant's particular circumstances, they concluded that there is no well-founded fear of persecution. [25] The Appellant quotes from a document in the NDP for Vietnam to support his argument that there are marked differences in the treatment of registered versus unregistered churches. The quoted portion states: A key distinction is between registered and unregistered faith groups. After the Vietnam War and the establishment of the unified Socialist Republic, the state created official religious groups and, since then, further groups have become registered. Registered groups worship with limited or no Government interference; those that are not registered may be pressured by Government to join a registered group.12 [26] However, the quoted portion has been taken out of context since it refers to unregistered religious groups, not unregistered churches, and Protestantism is a recognized group. The same document the Appellant quoted from states that Protestantism is broadly recognized by the Government and Protestants have a significant presence in the country.13 [27] The Appellant relies on documentation in the NDP regarding the treatment of Christians in Vietnam to support his claim. However, it is insufficient for the Appellant to simply rely on objective country conditions evidence to establish that he is personally at risk of persecution as a Christian. He must provide sufficient evidence of his particular situation and circumstances. His experience and subjective evidence may then be supported by the general country conditions.14 [28] As already mentioned above, country condition evidence alone is insufficient to support a claim for refugee protection.15 The Appellant cannot rely only on objective general country conditions evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. He must also provide sufficient subjective evidence of his specific situation and circumstances to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. He must link his particular circumstances to the general country conditions. The Appellant has not done so. [29] The Appellant lived in a district in Ho Chi Minh City, which is the largest city in Vietnam. The extent of difficulty a person could experience in practicing their faith depends on the area they live. Those who live in large cities are less likely to experience any interference and can practice freely.16 [30] The Appellant argues that the discrimination he would face in Vietnam amounts to persecution. There is insufficient evidence to support this argument. The Appellant did not provide evidence of any discrimination or persecution that he has personally faced due to his religion as a Christian. He stated that he and cousin spread the Gospel in Vietnam. He did not have problems doing so. He also testified that he was previously a Buddhist before he became a Christian and he did not report any problems practicing his faith, even though the Buddhist faith is also regulated by the government. [31] General country condition evidence in the NDP, and in the articles the Appellant presented at the RPD hearing,17 provide examples of harassment and persecution of Christians. However, the reports of persecution mainly relate to rural areas and minority ethnic groups, or religious leaders and pastors, particularly if they have been publicly critical of the authorities. This is not applicable to the Appellant's circumstances. [32] The NDP also contains reports of harassment of members of religious groups who were also engaged in political or human rights advocacy work, or who had ties to overseas organizations that were critical of the authorities.18 This is not applicable to the Appellant's circumstances. [33] The Appellant argues that it is not possible to separate politics and religion when the government regulates religious activity. While this may be true, this does not change the fact that the interplay between religion and politics in the country conditions evidence concerns harassment or persecution of Christians who were also involved in political or human rights advocacy, particularly if they were critical of the government. The Appellant has no such involvement. [34] I recognize that the concept of religious freedom is broad and includes the right to practice one's faith in the manner they choose. The Appellant argued that he cannot practice at a registered church because they operate differently than unregistered churches, since they are required to worship the state ahead of God. However, the Appellant did not provide any evidence to support his statement, and I did not find any in the NDP. The Appellant never attended a registered church in Vietnam, so he has no firsthand knowledge as to how they operate. Also, he stated that the unregistered church that he used to attend no longer exists. Therefore, he would have to find a new church if he returned to Vietnam, and he has not provided sufficient evidence as to why he could not attend a registered church in his city. The sur place aspect of the claim [35] I have considered the risk to the Appellant if he returns to Vietnam based on his religious activity in Canada. [36] The Appellant attended church services in Canada. He was also baptized in Canada. There is no evidence that this activity has come or will come to the attention of the authorities in Vietnam. More importantly, there is no evidence that his activity in Canada will place him at risk if he returns to Vietnam. The Protestant faith is broadly recognized by the Vietnamese government and Protestants have a significant presence in the country.19 There is insufficient evidence that the Appellant's participation in Christian activities in Canada could put him at risk of a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to Vietnam. CONCLUSION [37] The Appellant has not established that there is a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to Vietnam. Nor has he established that there is a likelihood, on a balance of probabilities, of a risk to his life, or of torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [38] 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) Karen Wallace Karen Wallace March 2, 2023 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 RPD Record, Exhibit 5.1, p. 114. 3 Ibid., p. 115. 4 Ibid., pp. 117-136. 5 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689. 6 RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Vietnam (July 29, 2022), item 12.1, Vietnam. International Religious Freedom Report for 2021, United States. Department of State, June 2, 2022. 7 Ibid., item 12.1; and item 12.2, Vietnam. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 2022 Annual Report, United States. Commission on International Religious Freedom, April 2022. 8 Ibid., item 12.1, p. 9. 9 Ibid., item 12.1, p. 1. 10 Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1995 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1995] 3 SCR 593. 11 Urbieta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 815. 12 RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Vietnam (July 29, 2022), item 1.4, DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam, Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, January 11, 2022, p. 14. 13 Ibid., item 1.4, p. 14, item 12.11, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Response to Information Request, VNM201069.E, June 22, 2022, p. 5; and item 12.6, Country Update: Vietnam. Religious Freedom in Vietnam in 2021, United States. Commission on International Religious Freedom, February 2022, p. 1. 14 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Egemba, 2021 FC 1184 (CanLII). 15 Urbieta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 815. 16 RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Vietnam (July 29, 2022), item 1.4, p. 14. 17 RPD Record, Exhibit 6. 18 Ibid., Exhibit 3, NDP for Vietnam (July 29, 2022), item 12.1. 19 Ibid., item 12.11, p. 5; and item 12.6, p. 1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-30692 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