TB5-02792

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02792 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision June 5, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Lesley Mason Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Shelley Levine Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX (Appellant), a citizen of the People's Republic of China (China), is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is requesting, pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the IRPA, that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside and substitute the negative determination with a positive determination or in the alternative, pursuant to s. 111(1)(c) of the IRPA, that the matter be referred back to a different member of the RPD for re-determination. The Appellant submits no new evidence nor does he request an oral hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant developed a XXXX disorder due to the pressures of his educational studies at XXXX. After consulting a doctor in XXXX 2013 the Appellant found that the prescription provided by the doctor was not long lasting in assisting him to overcome his XXXX. In XXXX 2013, the Appellant attended a Chinese doctor who prescribed Chinese herbs but the Appellant found no improvement in his health. [4] In XXXX 2013, the Appellant was introduced to the benefits of the practice of Falun Gong by his friend: XXXX XXXX XXXX. In XXXX 2013, XXXX XXXX XXXX introduced the Appellant to the five exercises of Falun Gong. Subsequently, the Appellant joined the practice group attended by XXXX XXXX XXXX which included not only the exercises but also the study of Zhuan Falun. [5] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, the Appellant was acting as a lookout at the back door of the home where the Falun Gong practice was taking place. The Appellant received a telephone call from the lookout in the front of the house who advised him the Public Security Bureau (PSB) cars were approaching. The Appellant escaped to the home of his paternal aunt. [6] The Appellant called his parents from the home of his aunt to inform them of the trouble. On XXXX XXXX, 2014, his parents informed his aunt that the PSB had come to their house looking for the Appellant. A Chuanpiao (subpoena) had been left with the Appellant's parents accusing him of illegal activities. The Appellant learned also that two members of his Falun Gong group, including his friend XXXX XXXX XXXX, had been arrested by the PSB. The PSB returned to the home of the Appellant's parents and asked why the Appellant had not reported to court. The PSB told the Appellant's parents that they would be charged of harbouring the Appellant if such were the case. [7] The Appellant's aunt assisted him in leaving China by engaging the assistance of a smuggler. [8] The Appellant travelled to United States (US) where he spent one month. He arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014. He made a claim for refugee protection on October 26, 2015. [9] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on January 26, 2015. In a written decision issued February 5, 2015, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD member did not find the Appellant to be credible on material aspects of his story. [10] The Appellant in his appeal submits that: a) the RPD panel erred in its analysis of the Appellant's ability to leave China using his own passport; b) the RPD panel's analysis of the Appellant's subjective fear was unreasonable; c) the RPD panel erred in its analysis with respect to the Appellant's knowledge of entering Canada illegally; d) the RPD panel erred in its analysis of the Appellant's summons; e) the RPD panel's analysis of the Appellant's sur place claim was unreasonable. ROLE OF THE RAD [11] The Federal Court decision in Huruglica1 has provided the RAD with guidance with respect to the role of the RAD. In this decision, Justice Phelan states: 54. Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. 55. In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error." [12] Accordingly, the RAD has applied the reasoning as set out in Huruglica2 in its decision. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE Was the RPD member's analysis of the Appellant's sur place claim in error? When the RPD member considered the sur place issue in her decision she first gave little evidentiary weight to the two letters from fellow practitioners in Canada and the three photographs of the Appellant involved in group practice. The member also found that there was insufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's Falun Gong activities in Canada have come to the attention of Chinese authorities which would put him at risk if he were to return to China. [13] The RPD member stated that she is required to make a judgment regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's Falun Gong practice and to consider the totality of the evidence. The member found the Appellant's story of persecution by the PSB because of his Falun Gong activities in China not credible and then found that she had no reason to believe the Appellant is now a genuine practitioner. [14] The Appellant pleads that the RPD member simply engaged in a nominal and theoretical exercise with respect to his sur place claim. The Appellant argues that the panel did not engage in a real analysis of his Falun Gong practice and identity in Canada. The Appellant argues further that the panel has the duty to consider his practice in Canada independently and with a clear mind. The Appellant also argues that he provided ample evidence in support of his practice in Canada through reference letters, photographs and detailed testimony. In his pleadings the Appellant depended upon the Federal Court decision in Chen where the Honourable Mr. Justice Russell found the following. [58] The very nature of a sur place claim requires the Board to consider the full context of what the Applicant has done since she came to Canada. There is no real assessment by the Board of whether the Applicant has become a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada. The bald assertion that she isn't genuine because she wasn't a genuine practitioner in China does not make logical sense and simply ignores the guiding jurisprudence of this Court on point. See, for example, Huang, above, at para 11, and Hailu, above, at para 6; Jin, above, at para 19; Yin, above, at paras 89-90. [59] Motive can certainly be part of any analysis, but there was strong evidence here of a detailed and genuine knowledge of Falun Gong and long and persistent practice in Canada. There was no attempt by the Board to discover and consider whether the Applicant is now a genuine practitioner. The Board's analysis simply stops with the assertion that if the Applicant was not a genuine practitioner in China then she cannot be a genuine practitioner in Canada.3 (emphasis added) [15] The Appellant pleads that the RPD member acknowledged that he attended Falun Gong sessions in XXXX XXXX. The Appellant argues that he would have been spotted by people sent to Canada by Chinese authorities to monitor those involved in Falun Gong activities and he will be persecuted should he return to China. [16] The RAD concurs with the findings of the RPD. The RAD's reasons follow. [17] With regards the Federal Court decision in Chen,4 referred to by the Appellant, the RAD finds the case at bar distinguishes itself from that case in that the Appellant did not, in his hearing before the RPD, display a detailed and genuine knowledge of Falun Gong. [18] In listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD concurs with the RPD member's finding that the Appellant's responses to questions regarding Falun Gong theory and practice did not reflect a reasonable understanding of Falun Gong principles for someone who had been practicing Falun Gong for the time he alleges of over one year. The RAD notes that the RPD member, in her decision under the topic 'Knowledge of Falun Gong', provided three pages of detailed examples of the Appellant's inability to answer questions regarding Falun Gong practice, questions that the RAD finds were quite rudimentary. [19] The RAD notes that the majority of the questions asked by the RPD member with regards to Falun Gong focused on aspects of the five exercises. The RAD understands that there are five sets of exercises that Falun Gong practitioners perform on a regular basis. On listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD notes that the Appellant had difficulty correctly describing the movements of all but the fourth exercise. For example, he was unable to name the movements of the first exercise in the correct order and failed to mention the first two movements. When questioned about these two movements, the Appellant incorrectly stated that they were preparatory movements. When asked about the second exercise, the Appellant reversed the order of the first two movements and omitted one other movement. When the Appellant was asked to explain his incorrect responses he provided incorrect information about the overlapping of hands. He also explained that he may have been rushing when he confused the order. When the Appellant was asked to describe the end position of the fifth exercise, he neglected to mention that it is the only exercise done sitting down and with the legs crossed in the lotus position. The Appellant incorrectly stated that the Lotus Hand Position is used in the fifth exercise. When asked in which movement the Lotus Hand Position is used, the Appellant testified that he could not remember. The Appellant was then asked to demonstrate the Lotus Hand Position. According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant provided three different hand positions none of which were correct. [20] During the hearing the RPD member referred the Appellant to one of Master Li's teachings, that of Righteous Thoughts and then asked the Appellant why this is so important. The Appellant testified that this is to get rid of evil completely. This response is correct. However, when the Appellant was asked how one sends forth Righteous Thoughts, the Appellant testified that he did not remember very clearly because he had only purchased the text, Zhuan Falun, after having arrived in Canada and in China they did exercises as well as reading the text during group practice. The RAD finds these explanations unsatisfactory. According to the independent documentary evidence, the activity of sending Righteous Thoughts is considered essential for all practitioners and is to be practised on a daily basis.5 [21] At one point in the hearing the Appellant was testifying about the extent to which he had read the text Zhuan Falun. The RPD member asked the Appellant if it was enough, as a Falun Gong practitioner, to just do the exercises. The Appellant responded that it was sufficient. The member then asked the Appellant if Master Li doesn't say that those who only do exercises and do not study are not disciples of Falun Dafa at all. The Appellant testified that practicing is to strengthen the body and reading the text is just the theoretical side. The RAD is aware that Master Li, the founder of Falun Gong, indicates practicing Falun Gong exercises is no more beneficial than practicing any other Qigong exercises and does not designate that individual as a Falun Gong practitioner. Being a Falun Gong practitioner is more than performing exercises and learning a series of facts, it involves the adoption of a philosophy and applying that philosophy to one's daily life. Master Li tells all practitioners to study, read and memorize the Zhuan Falun. He states, "As to those who only do the exercises but don't study the Fa, they are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever." In order to be considered a Falun Gong practitioner, one must read and understand the teachings of master Li, and practice them in one's everyday life"6. The RAD finds that the Appellant has no such understanding. [22] The RAD notes that throughout the hearing the Appellant's testimony was not given in a straightforward manner. In this regard, although he provided the correct responses when asked to recite verses he uses when he performs the exercises, his testimony was given in a hesitant and unspontaneous manner. Given that the Appellant testified that he has performed the exercises on a regular basis for well over a year, the RAD finds the Appellant's credibility further undermined. [23] As a result of listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD finds the Appellant appears to have learned a few key facts associated with Falun Gong that he inserted into his oral testimony, sometimes at inappropriate locations. For example, when the RPD member asked the Appellant to describe the level he had reached in his Falun Gong practice, he provided the response "truthfulness, forbearance and compassion". The RAD understands these terms are the three basic philosophical principles asserted by Master Li. However; they made no sense in the context of the question asked by the member. [24] The Appellant may have learned some aspects of the exercises associated with the practice of Falun Gong. The performance of these exercises in and of themselves are not illegal in China, and their implementation is simply analogous to the practice of Qigong, an ancient Chinese form of training for mental and physical health and does not define that individual as a genuine Falun Gong practitioner.7 [25] In his Basis of Claim (BOC) form, the Appellant states that he studied the text Zhuan Falun in his Falun Gong group in China.8 The recording of the hearing indicates that the Appellant was asked when he first read the text Zhuan Falun. After some hesitation, the Appellant testified that he first read the text on XXXX XXXX, 2014 shortly after he arrived in Canada when co-practitioners told him he needed to buy the text in order to do the exercises. When asked twice to confirm, the Appellant confirmed that he first read the text in Canada. However, he shortly thereafter changed this testimony and stated that he read the text in China. Upon being asked, he testified that he first read the text at the end of XXXX 2013. When the RPD member confronted the Appellant with the contradiction in his testimony, the Appellant testified that in Canada he purchased the text and read it but in China the text belonged to the counsellor of the practice group. The RPD member pointed out to the Appellant that she had not asked to whom the text belonged but when he had first read the text. The Appellant then repeated his testimony that he first read the text in China in XXXX 2013 and earlier he "thought the question including China". The RAD finds the Appellant's explanations unsatisfactory. An important indicator of credibility is whether a witness can consistently tell his particular story.9 The RAD finds in this instance, the Appellant was unable to keep his story straight. The Zhuan Falun text is the text that contains the essential teachings of Master Li regarding Falun Gong practice. The Appellant's testimony in this regard undermines his credibility. [26] During the hearing the RPD member referred the Appellant to the port-of-entry (POE) notes. In particular she referred him to a question which asks the claimant "What organizations have you supported, been a member of or been associated with?" to which the Appellant had answered "NONE".10 The RPD member asked the Appellant why he had not provided information regarding his association with Falun Gong in China. The Appellant testified that he had told the consultant that he practised Falun Gong. When the question was rephrased, the Appellant offered that Falun Gong is not a group, just an organization. He then repeated that he had informed the consultant about his Falun Gong practice and he then testified that the consultant had translated the form but had not mentioned this question. The RAD finds that the Appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation. The interpreter's declaration on the POE notes states that the interpreter "faithfully and accurately interpreted in the Cantonese language the content of this application...I have been informed by the person concerned (the Applicant), and I do verily believe, that he or she completely understand the nature and effect of these forms".11 The Appellant signed the form, declaring that "the information I have given in the foregoing application is truthful, complete and correct".12 The RAD finds no reason for the answer "NONE" being on the form except that the answer was given by the Appellant to the interpreter. The Appellant's credibility is thus diminished. [27] During the hearing the Appellant testified that he practised Falun Gong exercises in China for one year, each day on his own and once a week with a group. He explained that the group practice included the reading of Master Li's text, Zhuan Falun, which belonged to the group leader. He testified that once he arrived in Canada he began to practice Falun Gong twice each week in XXXX XXXX. He also testified that he reads the Zhuan Falun text in Canada, having purchased the text here on the advice of co-practitioners. According to the documentary evidence, the Appellant completed XXXX years of formal education in China and obtained a three-year college diploma.13 He testified that he was accepted into a bachelor's programme at the XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2014. The Appellant provided no evidence that he has been diagnosed with any medical issues that might affect his memory. The RAD thus infers that the Appellant is an intelligent young man, capable of providing information about his Falun Gong practice in a straightforward manner. He was unable to do so. [28] The RAD has considered the three photographs the Appellant provided at his hearing before the RPD as evidence of Falun Gong practice in Canada.14 The photographs do not address the claimant's motivations. It is also difficult for a few photographs alone to establish any sort of consistency of practice, especially when the Appellant's testimony before the RPD, after he had been practising in Canada, shows little knowledge of Falun Gong practice. As indicated above, the Appellant failed to provide credible testimony regarding his Falun Gong practice which might be evidenced in activities found in various photographs. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant's presence in these photographs indicates his attempt to foster an association with activities, which he knows little about, but senses his appearance in these activities will somehow bolster his claim. The photographs are, therefore, insufficient to overcome the RAD's determination that the Appellant is not credible. [29] The RAD has also considered two hand written letters from alleged fellow practitioners in Canada.15 The RAD gives little evidentiary weight to the documents for the following reasons. The documents are not attested. No identity documents are provided for the signatories. The letters attests to the authors practicing Falun Gong exercises with the Appellant but do not define what allegedly makes the Appellant a true Falun Gong practitioner. [30] In his appeal the Appellant referred to the independent documentary evidence which provides information regarding the monitoring of Chinese citizens who are practicing Falun Gong outside of China.16 According to the Appellant's testimony before the RPD he practices at XXXX XXXX in north-east Toronto twice weekly. The Appellant argues that his Falun Gong activities in Canada may put him at risk in China because of reports of monitoring by Chinese authorities in Canada. The RAD, respectfully, does not agree. There is little independent information establishing the degree to which Falun Gong practitioners are actively monitored in their public activities in Canada. There are reports by Falun Gong practitioners themselves of monitoring by the Chinese authorities.17 Country research also states that representatives of the Falun Dafa Association of Canada (FDAC) stated that the Chinese authorities monitor practitioners of Falun Gong in Canada. The research directorate was unable, however, to find independent evidence corroborating this information.18 [31] It is difficult to make a judgment regarding the genuineness of a person's philosophical practice. However, as a result of the above findings, the RAD finds on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not a true practitioner of Falun Gong in China or is a true Falun Gong practitioner in Canada. The RAD finds that whatever knowledge of Falun Gong the Appellant possesses, was obtained only for the purpose of supporting a fraudulent refugee claim. [32] The Appellant's sur place claim, thus, fails. [33] If, as the RAD has concluded, the Appellant is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, it follows, as the RPD member found, that the PSB would have no interest in pursuing him for an association with Falun Gong activities in China. Was the panel's analysis of the Applicant's subjective fear in error? [34] The RPD member found the Appellant explanation for not making a claim for protection in the US that is, he was following the smuggler's instructions, to be unreasonable. She stated that the Appellant could have asked his aunt, who had assisted him in leaving China, to obtain information for him. The RPD member noted that the Appellant had a valid US visa and waited XXXX weeks in the US before coming to Canada. The member referred to jurisprudence which states that there is an expectation that a person fearing for his life will take the first opportunity to seek protection. The RPD member took a negative inference in regards to the Appellant's subjective fear and credibility from his failure to claim for refugee protection in the US. [35] The Appellant argues that the RPD member speculated, using her own expected standard of behaviour, concerning the likely actions of a person who has engaged a smuggler who recommends a country of refuge while the person already has valid status in another country. The Appellant argues further that he was under the complete care and control of a smuggler and the valid US visa only facilitated the travel to Canada. [36] The RAD agrees with the RPD member with respect to the Appellant's lack of subjective fear in not making a claim for protection in the US which, thus, undermines his credibility. The RAD finds that the RPD member did not speculate. Rather, she depended upon the jurisprudence. [37] The RAD notes, for example, in the Ilie decision the Federal Court held: "The tribunal was entitled to consider the applicant's failure to claim refugee status in other countries, and to consider how the applicant's evidence was to be weighed in light of that failure."19 [38] In the decision of Hibo Farah Mohamed and Arod Omer v. MCI, the Court held: The Geneva Convention exists for persons who require protection and not to assist person who simply prefer asylum in one country over another. The Convention and the Immigration Act should be interpreted with correct purpose in mind.20 [39] Similarly, in the case of Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v MCI, the Court held: Failure to immediately seek protection can impugn the claimant's credibility, including his or her testimony about events in his country of origin.21 [40] The RAD appreciates that the claimant depended upon the smuggler's knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, the Appellant is a mature young man with a post-secondary education. There was no legal impediment to the Applicant remaining in the US and filing an asylum claim in the US according to his testimony the Applicant held a one-year US student visa. The RAD has no reason to believe that there was not sufficient time in the US for the Appellant to make inquiries regarding claiming for protection in the US. His behavior in not applying for protection while in the US is not that of a person who fears persecution in his own country. [41] The RAD finds it reasonable for the Appellant to have sought the protection of the US if he genuinely came to that country fearing for his life. The Appellant did not do so, and the RAD draws a negative inference on his credibility as a result. Did the panel err in its analysis of the Appellant's knowledge of entering Canada illegally? [42] The RPD member found the Appellant's assertion that he did not know at the time when he walked across a park, after having been transported in a car with tinted windows, that he was entering Canada illegally to be not credible. The member drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility. [43] The Appellant argues that he testified that he was fearful when he was alone in the park but there is no logical link between fearing being left alone in a park and sitting in a car with tinted windows with knowing he was entering Canada illegally. The Appellant argues further that whether or not he knew he was crossing the border illegally is unrelated to his refugee claim. [44] The RAD concurs with the RPD. The Appellant testified that he knew that Canada was his final destination. According to the Appellant's testimony he described sitting for half an hour in a car with tinted window, he was instructed on how to respond to a girl in the park when she asked about having his photograph taken, he was told that the girl would give him instructions on which direction he should walk. While the smuggler may not have responded to the Appellant's questions about what was happening, the RAD believes that common sense would tell the Appellant that through clandestine means he was making his way to Canada, his final destination. The RAD thus draws a negative inference from the Appellant's testimony. The RAD also notes that the Appellant willingly left a country where he had legal status and took the risk that he might be deported. Such behaviour undermines his subjective fear. Did the panel err in its analysis of the Applicant's ability to leave China using his own passport? [45] In her decision, the RPD member found that if the Appellant had been wanted by the PSB because he was a Falun Gong practitioner he would have been discovered by the authorities when he exited China using his own passport. The member provided a detailed analysis of the close monitoring by the Chinese government of its citizens and the exit controls at airports and other border crossings. [46] The Appellant, after pointing out that the RPD member noted in her decision that corruption has been identified as a problem in China and that airport officials can be bribed, argues that the RPD member ignored her own acknowledgement of corruption. The Appellant argues that as a result of rampant corruption it is plausible that the smuggler was able to take care of everything at customs and immigration to allow him to pass through the airport undetected. [47] The RAD finds the Appellant's arguments have merit. While the Chinese authorities no doubt have extensive monitoring and exit controls on its citizens, the Honourable Madam Justice Dawson found that "[o]ne official with access to the computer system would be sufficient" to allow a person wanted by the Chinese authorities to safely exit China using the assistance of a smuggler.22 Did the panel err in its analysis of the Applicant's summons? [48] The panel placed no weight on the summons provided by the Appellant. In her reasons, she stated that there is printing on top of the official red stamp on the summons. The panel also stated that there are no security features on the document to check its authenticity. The panel found that in the context of the totality of the evidence available at the hearing, as well as the context of the cumulative findings and negative inferences, the summons is a falsified document. The panel noted that according to the NDP fraudulent documents are available in China. [49] The Appellant argues that since the panel made her findings upon observations made with a photocopy of the summons, her findings with regards to the printing over the seal are speculative. The Appellant also argues that the panel failed to provide clear reasoning of how the printing over the seal factored into her assessment of the summons. [50] The Appellant depends upon jurisprudence when he argues that documents issued by a foreign jurisprudence are entitled to the presumption of the truth of their content, absent valid reasons to reject them.23 The Appellant argued that the panel failed to use the available forensic testing services at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to determine the authenticity of the summons which is a breach of procedural fairness. [51] The Appellant argued that the Federal Court held that although fraudulent documents are widely available in China, this does not mean that every document out of China is necessarily fraudulent.24 [52] For the following reasons the RAD agrees with the RPD. i) Given the RAD's adverse credibility findings stated above, the RAD find that this document is not sufficient to offset its adverse credibility findings. The RAD is supported in this finding by jurisprudence.25 It is well-established that general findings of lack of credibility can affect all relevant evidence submitted by an Applicant, including documentary evidence, and ultimately cause the rejection of the claim. 26 ii) It is not clear from the recording of the hearing whether the original document was made available to the RPD or if the RPD examined the original document. The RAD requested that the Appellant provide the original summons; one week was given to the Appellant to provide the original document.. At the end of that week the Appellant requested an extension of time and one further week was granted. However, at the completion of this decision, the Appellant has not provided the original summons.. The RAD, therefore, has not had the opportunity to examine the original document. Rule 42 of the Refugee Protection Division states that the Applicant "must provide the original document to the Division". No reason has been provided for the absence of the original. DISPOSITION [53] On the basis of the findings noted above and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record including the recording of the hearing, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding that the Appellant has not satisfied his burden of establishing a serious possibility that he would be persecuted or that he would be personally subjected to a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture in China. The RAD confirms the determination of the RPD as per s. 111(1)(a) of IRPA. [54] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Lesley Mason" Lesley Mason June 5, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13, Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799). 2 Ibid. 3 Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 749 (CanLII). 4 Ibid. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 56-108, National Documentation Package (NDP): China, 31 October 2014,at items 12.25 : Righteous Thoughts, Falun Gong; 12.38: The Two Hand Positions for sending forth Righteous Thoughts, Falun Gong. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at item 12.32, Response to Information Request (RIR) CHN33180.EX: Falun Dafa (Falun Gong, Falungong); history, details of practice, organizational structures; treatment of practitioners; laws and practice regarding other non-recognized practices and religions. 7 Ibid. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, page 26. 9 Dan-Ash v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (F.C.A.). 10 Exhibit RPD-1, page 38, question 9. 11 Ibid., page 40. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., page 38, question 7. 14 Ibid., pages 497-498 15 Ibid., pages 493-496 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pages at item 12.31, RIR CHN104187.E 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ilie, Lucian Ioan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-462-94), McKay, November 22, 1994. 20 Mohamed, Hibo Farah v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2248-96), Rothstein, April 9, 1997, para. 9. 21 Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2683-96), Teitelbaum, March 25, 1997. 22 Zhang v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3703-07), Dawson, April 23, 2008, para. 11 23 Cao v. M.C.I., 2012 FC 694 24 Lin v. M.C.I., 2012 Carswell Nat 267, FC 157 (F.C.A.), at para a55 25 Garcha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Blais, September 27, 2002, 2002 FCT 1012 26 Ayub v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1411 at para 8-9, Nijjer v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1259; Alonso v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 683 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-02792