TB5-10666

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 : TB5-10666 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 November 10, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Robert S. Garner 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 (the Appellant) is a citizen of China. He appeals the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision of April 21, 2015 that states that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted in his country of nationality for any of the five grounds enumerated in the refugee convention. The Appellant would not face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in his country of nationality. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to s. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upholds the RPD's decision that the Appellant is not a Convention Refugee, and dismisses the appeal. Memorandum of Appeal [3] The Appellant submits that: a. The [RPD] engaged in a microscopic examination of issues not central to the [Appellant's] claim for refugee protection; b. The [RPD's] analysis of the [Appellant's] sur place claim was unreasonable; c. The [RPD] held the [Appellant] to an unreasonably high standard of religious knowledge [4] The Appellant respectfully requests that the RAD set aside the RPD's decision and substitute that decision with its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, in accordance with its jurisdiction under section 111(1)(b) of the IRPA. [5] Alternatively, the Appellant respectfully requests that the RAD remit the matter back to a differently constituted panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board under section 111(1)(c) of the IRPA. Background [6] The Appellant was born on XXXX XXXX, 1990 in XXXX city, Fujian province, China. After the death of his cousin on XXXX XXXX, 2014, the Appellant accepted the ministrations of a friend on XXXX 2014, regarding the practice of Christianity through the Jehovah's Witness sect. The Appellant began attending the house church, and on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, was baptized by the Elder and became an official member of the house church. [7] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014 the Appellant distributed religious leaflets on the street when a person asked for his Chinese ID card and took a photo of this card by cell phone. The following day, five policemen came to his home, tasered him, and used electric batons to beat him. When he awoke, the police were otherwise occupied in the house, and he escaped by the back door. [8] The Appellant went to XXXX city; he found a place to stay and a job as a XXXX. Upon learning that police went to his house on XXXX XXXX, 2014, he became worried, called Elder XXXX, and he was told by him to go to Canada. The next day, a white lady came to him and told him to follow her and he finally came to Canada. Role of the RAD [9] The Appellant made no submissions on the standard of review. The RAD finds that the Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,1 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal, such as the RAD, to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. Justice Phelan states in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the foregoing decision: [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 [Appellant] 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". [10] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Deference will be afforded to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions MERITS OF THE APPEAL Credibility The RPD engaged in a microscopic examination of the issues not central to the Appellant's claim for refugee protection [11] The Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) stated that he ran into a friend in XXXX 2014; a friend who introduced him to the Jehovah's Witness Faith. In the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) interview,2 the Appellant stated that he ran into his friend in XXXX 2014. When this inconsistency was put to the Appellant, he stated that he ran into his former classmate in XXXX, not XXXX, and that is what he said at the interview. Given the Appellant did not dispute the rest of the content on the record of the interview, the RPD, on a balance of probabilities, preferred the officer's record of the interview to the Appellant's explanation that the month was recorded incorrectly by the officer. The Appellant's counsel at the RPD hearing explained that that inconsistency occurred because Appellant was tired from the trip and nervous. The RPD found that this explanation was not sufficient to overcome the inconsistency. The RPD noted, after informing counsel, that he noticed some running commentary by the officer, but would not take into account such running commentary when making a decision. The RPD also noted that the section of the interview containing the reference to XXXX is not part of the running commentary. The CBSA officer's question was open ended, and did not ask for a date. The RPD drew a negative inference. [12] The RPD drew a negative inference regarding the Appellant's credibility from the inconsistency between the Appellant's testimony and the hand written narrative.3 The Appellant's testimony was that this person was interested, so he gave him his ID. The person then took a picture of the national identity card and took the leaflet. In the Appellant's hand written narrative, mentioned above, he does not state that the person was interested in the leaflet, nor the fact that he took the leaflet after checking the Appellant's identification. When this inconsistency was put to the Appellant, he stated he did not think of putting down every detail in the BOC narrative, he just wrote a basic picture of the event in the BOC narrative. The RPD reasoned that in the one description, there was sufficient interaction between the two men for the Appellant to assess the other man's motivation, and for the Appellant to hear and remember what the man said. The handwritten statement describes a quick incident with an abrupt and shortened interaction between strangers. The RPD reasoned that if the question was one of a difference in level of detail, one would expect similarities in the basic aspects of the described event. [13] In addition, the RPD noted that the Appellant was aware of the risk of showing his identification to someone while doing something that was prohibited, but could not explain why he would do such a thing, and stated he did it "subconsciously". The RPD found his alleged actions in this case are not credible. [14] The Appellant submits that his lack of ability to remember exactly when he first met his classmate constitutes a microscopic examination of issues that were peripheral to the claim for refugee protection. [15] As noted above, the Appellant submits that the RPD's analysis is focused on issues that are not central to the Appellant's claim. Whether or not the stranger took a religious leaflet, in addition to taking the photograph of the Appellant's identification, has no logical connection to whether he is currently sought by the Public Security Bureau (PSB). [16] The Appellant submitted Case Law to support the above submissions.4 The Appellant submits that in this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal criticized and overturned the decision of a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board for focusing on inconsistencies which, "although not insignificant", were "not central to the Appellant's claim" while ignoring "important aspects of her case". [17] The RAD examined the documentation from CBSA and found that the question, "How did you find out about this church?" is open-ended, and did not ask for specific dates. The Appellant responded that he met his friend in XXXX, information that is inconsistent with his BOC narrative. In listening to the recording, the Appellant clearly implied that the CBSA officer's recording of the information was incorrect. The RAD supports the RPD's finding of drawing a negative inference from this inconsistency. The RAD agrees with the Appellant's submission that this is not a critical issue in the refugee claim; however, this issue does speak to a lack of credibility of the Appellant, and needs to be considered in the overall decision. [18] With regards to the variation in the stories between the Appellant's testimony and his handwritten note regarding the stranger on the street, the RAD makes the following assessment. The RAD draws a negative inference from the Appellant's inconsistency between testimony and documentation. One could expect that the Appellant could have reasonably shown his ID to the person who expressed some interest in the information. However, to show your ID to a stranger and allow him to photograph it is not credible, especially when he was aware of the illegality of his actions. The RAD agrees that this inconsistency is not pertinent to the Appellant's allegations of being sought by the PSB for the practice of his religion, the Jehovah's Witness Faith; however, this inconsistency does speak to a lack of credibility regarding the Appellant. The following issues of credibility were not challenged by the Appellant in his Memorandum of appeal [19] In the CBSA interview, the Appellant stated that Christmas is one of the Christian holidays he celebrates. Quoting documentation, the RAD finds that this is contrary to the objective evidence on Jehovah's Witness practice. In testimony, the Appellant stated that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas because it is not specified in the Bible, and because it is not known when Jesus was born. When this inconsistency was put to the Appellant, he stated that he was nervous and just provided the CBSA officer the information for the sake of it. The RPD drew a negative inference from this inconsistency. [20] The RPD found it not credible that the Appellant, after being tasered and regaining consciousness, was able to escape through the back door in spite of the alleged presence of five police officers in his home. The RPD found it not credible that the police officers would have been having a discussion with his family members and neighbors, and not focusing on him. [21] The RPD found it not credible that the Appellant did not know whether a summons or warrant had been issued for him. The Appellant testified that since his departure from China, police officers had returned to his home in search of him five or six times, and wanted him to turn himself in. He alleges that he has kept in contact with his parents, and they gave him the information regarding the number of police visits to his home since his departure from China. Given this ongoing contact, the RPD found the Appellant not credible regarding his testimony. [22] The Appellant alleged that the police officers visited his home on XXXX XXXX, 2014, and told his parents they knew where he was. The Appellant alleges that he was in the city of XXXX, where he was employed and not in hiding. The RPD wondered why the police did not contact him there given their presumed efficiency, which can be garnered from the allegation that they went to his home within 12 hours of him distributing flyers. [23] Three weeks prior to the first sitting of the refugee hearing, the Appellant's counsel was sent a letter requesting the Appellant to document his contact with the police in China and the treatment he received at their hands. He was also asked to document his religious practice and conversion in China and/or in Canada. No such corroborative documentation was submitted. The RPD elaborated that there were people he was in contact with who could have provided corroborative documentation to alleviate some of the RPD's concerns. The RPD drew a negative inference from the lack of submission of such corroborative documentation. The RPD also found that the lack of continuity between the objectively-based stated fear of persecution and the paltry efforts to document the claim in this regard, damaged the Appellant's credibility. The RPD noted that in the Appellant's CBSA interview he stated that his parents paid the Elder5 to arrange to bring him to Canada. The RPD reasoned that, knowing that the Appellant has ongoing contact with his parents, one would have expected corroboration or an explanation as to why there were no corroborative documents from the Elder. [24] The RAD draws a negative inference from this inconsistency between the CBSA interview and testimony at the hearing. It is not credible that the Appellant would make the statement that he celebrated Christmas if he was in fact a Jehovah's Witness member in China. Such a basic tenet of the faith should be clearly remembered and articulated. [25] The RAD finds the Appellant's allegations that he escaped from the house after being tasered, and unconscious, is not credible. Clearly the attention of the police, if the Appellant's testimony is to be believed, would be on him and ensuring that he was dealt with appropriately. To suggest that they ignored him to the point where he could escape from the back door, after regaining consciousness, stretches credulity. [26] The RAD concurs with the RPD on the conclusion regarding the alleged police visits and the Appellant's lack of knowledge of any warrant or summons being issued for him. Given the Appellant's testimony that he has kept in touch with his parents, it would be reasonable that such communication regarding such a serious issue, would be discussed. [27] The RAD draws a negative inference from the Appellant's lack of effort to acquire supporting or corroborative documentation regarding some critical issues of the claim, his alleged police involvement in China, and his alleged involvement with the Jehovah's Witnesses in China. The Appellant's statements to the CBSA officer clearly indicate that there was knowledge of and communication between the alleged Elder of the Jehovah's Witness sect in China and his parents. For no corroborative documentation to be acquired or provide a reasonable explanation why the documentation could not be sent, is not credible. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's allegations of involvement with the Jehovah's Witness sect in China is not credible. The RAD also finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the allegations of being sought by the police in China are not credible. Additional support for this RAD finding, is the Appellant's testimony during the CBSA interview, where he states that he was baptized by having the Elder pour clean water over his face and say "in the name of the Lord you are now baptized". According to documentation,6 Jehovah's Witnesses do a complete body immersion, information that the Appellant gave during his testimony at the hearing, but not when first questioned by the CBSA officer. The RAD does not accept the Appellant's explanation that they had limited resources. The Jehovah's Witness are quite strong in their beliefs, especially the sacraments that they practice. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not been credible about his involvement with the Jehovah's Witness sect in China, or his alleged involvement with the police because of his membership with this group. The RPD held the Appellant to an unreasonably high standard of religious knowledge [28] The Appellant stated that he has been attending religious events, including Bible study, twice a week for a total of three and a half hours a week. When questioned by counsel, the Appellant answered several questions on the doctrinal aspects of the Jehovah's Witness faith correctly. However, the RPD found that several of the questions asked by counsel were leading and as a result wasn't able to give the responses much weight. An example of counsel's questioning was, "so is it important to spread the teaching to others so that there are more believers when the time comes?" Another example was when counsel asked the Appellant whether proselytizing is important to him. The Appellant stated that when one is immersed in the water, one dies and that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross; correct answers according to the documentation. [29] The Appellant stated that his alleged baptism into the Jehovah's Witness faith in China is not recognized by his congregation in Ontario. A witness, who had already written a letter of support for the Appellant,7 testified at the second sitting of the refugee hearing. The witness's testimony on behalf of the Appellant was indefinite and lukewarm. The witness has attended the Appellant's Jehovah's Witness congregation for 10 years, and is the personal teacher of religion for the Appellant. The witness confirmed the presence of the Appellant at Jehovah's Witness events in Mandarin, and stated, "He is a pretty good student." The witness was unable to definitely state whether the Appellant was a genuine Jehovah's Witness practitioner, and also said that he is just a Bible student and that his Jehovah's Witness congregation in Ontario does not know the Appellant that well. This latter statement is an explanation of why there was no official letterhead on his letter of support. The witness explained that things would be different if the Appellant was baptized. The RPD found that it was not clear to the witness, in all their study and interactions, that the Appellant had taken in the essence of Jehovah's Witnesses. The RPD noted that counsel's question was a leading one when he asked the witness when he teaches the Appellant does he think he's eager to learn the Bible, and as a result gave it little weight. The RPD found that the witness's testimony in and of itself, does not support the Appellant's contention that he has embraced the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness faith. [30] The RPD noted that there were several issues regarding the Appellant's alleged faith that were absent in testimony. The issues missing were: the concept of serving God, dedicating oneself to Jehovah God as an important step to take before being baptized, failure to mention any sense of disowning oneself as a precursor to making a dedication to Jehovah. Also absent, was any sense that, "before you can be baptized... doing Jehovah God's will must be your main purpose in life",8 and absent was any spiritual or religious sense that, through baptism, one has "...made a dedication to Jehovah God himself, not to a work, a cause, other humans, or an organization."9 [31] The RPD found that these concepts matter because the evidence before the RPD was that the Jehovah's Witness faith and practice are much more demanding of one's time than several other Christian faiths. This information is repeated many times in the Jehovah's Witness literature of service, dedication, and disowning afore mentioned. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that missionary work should take priority over career, and that the point in their life is to live in the service of God. The RPD found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate his adherence to the central and differentiating aspect of the Jehovah's Witness faith. [32] The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony came across as someone who had studied the material at hand to the extent that he was able to reiterate it. The RPD stated that if the Appellant had been convincing as to his deeply-held faith, the material doctrinal inconsistencies would hold little weight. However, seen in the context of other credibility concerns in this claim, the RPD found that the Appellant's conversion was not genuine or enduring. [33] The Appellant submits that the RPD's conclusion that the Appellant was not a genuine Jehovah's Witness in Canada is unreasonable because the RPD held the Appellant to an unduly high standard of knowledge. The Appellant submits that the RPD's conclusion was based on the use of a series of intricate trivia questions regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. [34] The Appellant specifically referred to the RPD's decision in paragraph 31 as an example. The Appellant submits that the RPD acknowledged that he was able to provide correct answers, and displayed a significant amount of knowledge regarding Jehovah's Witness faith, referring to the RPD's decision at paragraph 29. The Appellant also refers to paragraph 30 of the RPD's decision, as another example of where he provided an answer consistent with documentary evidence. The Appellant also provided a witness who attested to his current devotion to the Jehovah's Witness faith. [35] The Appellant submitted several Federal Court cases to support the submission.10 The Appellant submits that the RPD's approach to adjudicate the genuineness of the Appellant's identity as a Jehovah's Witness was unreasonable because it was based largely on this extensive level of questioning, some of which he succeeded in responding to, some of which he did not. The Appellant submitted that such an approach is unreasonable in light of compelling evidence of both religious identity and participation in Canada. [36] The Appellant submitted that matters of faith cannot be reduced to a purely analytical analysis because such an approach is microscopic and misses the bigger picture. The Appellant submitted articulated relevant concepts, provided detailed testimony with respect to his activities, and presented evidence from a balanced and neutral witness. [37] In listening to the testimony of the hearing, and examining documentation as well as the issues presented by both the RPD and the Appellant, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not a genuine Jehovah's Witness follower. [38] According to the Appellant's BOC narrative, he was baptized and became a member of the Jehovah's Witness sect in China.11 In order for this alleged baptism to have taken place, according to the documentation presented,12 the Appellant would have had to embrace many issues and concepts, some of which are outlined in the RPD's decision. There was no evidence or documentation presented to suggest that there are doctrinal differences between the Jehovah's Witness sect in China and in Canada. The RAD found that the Appellant's testimony about baptism at the CBSA interview was not credible. The RAD found, earlier in this decision, that the Appellant was not a practicing Jehovah's Witness in China. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, and as stated earlier in this decision, the allegations of having been a Jehovah's Witness in China are not credible, and that the teachings that the Appellant has learned, have occurred since he arrived in Canada. The RAD draws a negative inference from the Appellant's lack of credibility regarding his alleged Jehovah's Witness experiences in China. The RAD also draws a negative inference from the Appellant's allegations that he was sought by the authorities for being a Jehovah's Witness. [39] The RAD concurs with the RPD's reasoning regarding the Jehovah's Witness religion. It is a religion that demands complete commitment, not just the learning and recitation of facts and information. In listening to the recording, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not embraced these concepts, and as a result, has not been baptized in Canada. The Appellant did answer some questions correctly; however, the RAD gives little weight to the leading questions asked by the Appellant's counsel at the refugee hearing. The RAD gives deference to the RPD with regard to its findings that the Appellant did not present himself as a genuine Jehovah's Witness practitioner at the hearing. [40] In reviewing the Appellant's witness testimony at the hearing, the RAD finds that he was unable to state that the Appellant was a genuine Jehovah's Witness practitioner. He referred to the Appellant as a student of the Bible. The RAD has considered the Appellant's submissions, and Federal Case law, but given the nature of the Jehovah's Witness sect, the RAD finds that the RPD, on a balance of probabilities, was not microscopic in its questioning and observations. As stated above, the Jehovah's Witness sect demands more than knowledge; it demands complete commitment, something that the Appellant did not demonstrate at the hearing. [41] The Appellant gave internally inconsistent testimony when he first stated that when you die, your body will feel nothing. He also testified that we are going to be linked and resurrected by God, "So give us, be spiritually resurrected. So like live in heaven, kingdom of heaven, the kingdom administered by Jesus." The Appellant was challenged by the RPD on this response, in that it did not seem to be in accordance with the information given in the documentation. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when a person dies their existence completely stops. The RPD noted there was no mention of resurrection for the kingdom of heaven. When asked to explain, counsel objected because the RPD was dealing with the technical area of interpretation, and "it's important that the questions posed to him are based on the evidence in front of us". The RPD asked the Appellant to answer the question in spite of counsel's objection. The Appellant stated, "Not everyone can resurrect; only those who truly believe in God could resurrect." The documentation presented on page 607 of the RPD's record clearly indicates that when a person dies, their existence completely stops. [42] When questioned by counsel, the Appellant repeated some of his responses do with baptism. When asked to clarify what he meant by resurrection, the Appellant stated that, "resurrection is not that you come back, you know, you physically come back to life like your spirit... Like your soul will become alive." The Appellant made no mention of the end of time, or the fact that 1914 was the beginning of this belief. The Appellant also made no mention that 144,000 people, the anointed, could go to heaven at the end of time and be there with Christ. The RAD finds that the Appellant does not have a clear understanding of this concept, as understood by genuine practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. When asked by counsel if he had a complete baptism as prescribed by Jehovah's Witness beliefs, he replied "This, I'm not too sure. But I know, you know, I contribute myself, my person, my belief, my-- physically to Jehovah." The RAD finds that the Appellant does not have a clear understanding of the sacrament of baptism as described by Jehovah's Witnesses. [43] When the Appellant's counsel asked about anything in the teaching with respect to the end of time, the Appellant stated, "When God's kingdom comes, He descended, he send it. Everything. Babylon. All of the creation, no, they believers, they will be destroyed. Only Those Who Are True Believers Will Have Happiness-Everlasting Life. So, to Us, That's Not the End of Time; That's the Beginning of Happiness." As stated above, the end of times have some very specific beliefs according to Jehovah's Witnesses. The Appellant did not demonstrate an understanding of this concept. [44] The RAD finds that the Appellant is not a genuine Jehovah's Witness practitioner in Canada, and that he has attended meetings and taken on private study of the Bible in order to submit a fraudulent refugee claim. The RAD finds the Appellant has not been credible about his story. The RPD's analysis of the Appellant's sur place claim was unreasonable [45] The RPD found that there was little, if any, evidence of the Appellant having made the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness faith his own. He simply does not appear to have internalized any of the faith's messages. In finding that the Appellant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is committed to the life of Jehovah's Witnesses, the RPD found that the Appellant would not feel compelled to proselytize or otherwise draw attention to himself if he were to return to China. [46] The Appellant submits that the RPD relied on its own credibility determinations in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant did not face a risk of persecution in China as a genuine practicing Jehovah's Witness in Canada. The Appellant referred to paragraph 33 in the RPD's decision to support the submission, "However, seen in the context of other credibility concerns in this claim, they deter me from finding the claimant's conversion genuine or enduring." [47] The Appellant submits that there was compelling evidence with respect to the sur place claim and the RPD had a duty to address it. The Appellant submits that he demonstrated a high degree of religious knowledge, provided detailed forthright testimony with respect to his religious activities in Canada, and the testimony of a neutral witness confirmed his activities and eagerness toward spiritual growth. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the RPD's determination regarding the genuineness of his identity as a genuine practicing Jehovah's Witness in Canada was improperly tainted by its prior credibility determinations. The Appellant submitted Federal Court case law to support this submission.13 [48] The Appellant asks that the RAD examine the evidence outlined above, substituting a positive determination in lieu of the determination made by the RPD. The RPD dismissed several questions from counsel because they considered the questions leading. The RPD found that the witness's testimony at the hearing, in and of itself, does not support the Appellant's contention that he has embraced the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness faith. In both these submissions, the Appellant refers to portions of the RPD's decision. The Appellant submits that evidence that was given with respect to his activities was from a balanced and neutral witness. He submits that it is highly unreasonable to disregard such evidence due to a narrow technical approach. [49] As stated above, the RAD agrees with the RPD's conclusion that although the Appellant answered several questions correctly, it can give no weight to the leading questions asked by counsel. Also as stated above, in listening to the recording, the RAD finds that the Appellant did not demonstrate, at the hearing, the commitment of a Jehovah's Witness, according to documentation. This finding is a restatement of the RPD's decision to which the RAD gave deference. [50] The witness's testimony at the hearing did not affirm that the Appellant was a genuine Jehovah's Witness practitioner. He testified that he was a student of the Bible and had not yet demonstrated a commitment to the faith; a commitment necessary in order to be baptized in Canada, as indicated by the Jehovah's Witness sect. These findings by the RAD, along with the negative credibility findings outlined in this decision, cause the RAD to find, as stated above, that the Appellant is not a genuine Jehovah's Witness practitioner in Canada. [51] No documentation was evident or produced to indicate that the Chinese authorities have any interest in the Appellant. The RAD concurs with the RPD's findings that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is committed to the life of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Because of these findings, the RAD finds that the Appellant will not feel compelled to proselytize or otherwise draw attention to himself if he were to return to China. Disposition [52] The RAD upholds the decision of the RPD, according to section 111(1)(a), and finds that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person who would be subject to persecution should he return to China. (signed) "Robert S. Garner" Robert S. Garner November 10, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 131. 3 Ibid., p. 591. 4 Mahathmasseelan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 29 (F.C.A.), at para. 9. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, p. 139. 6 Ibid., p. 613. 7 Ibid., p. 588. 8 Ibid., p. 617. 9 Ibid., p. 618. 10 Dong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CarswellNat 83 (F. C.); Ullah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CarswellNat 2888 (F.C. T.D.); Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1030; Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 288. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, pp. 28-29. 12 Ibid., pp. 612-619. 13 Yin, Lipeng v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3129-09), Russell, May 17, 2010, 2010 FC 544, paras. 11, 12, 15, and 86. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-10666