TB5-04691

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 : TB5-04691 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 July 8, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Leonard Favreau Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Shelley Levine 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 a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. [2] He has not submitted new evidence in support of his appeal. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute its own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, or in the alternative, refer his claim back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [3] Pursuant to s. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [4] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he has been practicing Falun Gong in China since XXXX 2012. In XXXX of that year, he was at his regular practice group meeting when it was raided by members of the Public Security Bureau (PSB). The Appellant was able to escape and go into hiding. While in hiding, he learned that two of his fellow practitioners were arrested and that the Public Security Bureau left a Chuanpio (subpoena) for him with his parents. The Appellant used the services of a smuggler to leave China and travel to Canada in XXXX 2013. He alleges that he did not have enough money to pay the smuggler and was brought to a XXXX outside of Toronto where he worked to pay off the debt. In XXXX 2014, he was released from his debt and taken to Toronto. He later learned that his father had been killed in a confrontation with the PSB when they attended his home in China in search of him. [5] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard over two sittings on February 3, 2015 and March 6, 2015. In a decision of April 13, 2015, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that the Appellant was not credible. [6] The Appellant submit that the RPD made the following errors in its assessment of the evidence which renders its determination unsustainable. 1. The RPD erred in relying on the absence of corroborating documents to reject his claim. 2. The RPD misapprehended the evidence with respect to his ability to leave China using his own passport. 3. The RPD engaged in microscopic analysis concerning his father's death; and 4. The RPD engaged in unreasonable analysis of his supporting documentation. ROLE OF THE RAD [7] Counsel has not made submissions in regard to the role that the RAD plays in the review of an RPD decision. However, the RAD finds that the recent 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 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." [8] While there has been some conflict in the case law from the Federal Court regarding the standard of review to be applied by the RAD when reviewing RPD decisions, Justice Martineau, in Alyafi2, has said that, in the face of this conflict, the Federal Court should allow the RAD to apply either approach, as long as the question of the scope of the appellate review of the RPD's decisions has not been settled by a final judgment by the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. [9] 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. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Relying on the Absence of Corroborating Documents [10] The Appellant submits that the RPD drew an adverse credibility finding on the basis that he did not provide medical evidence relating to his treatment of the medical condition which was the impetus for engaging in the practice of Falun Gong. The Appellant argues that the Federal Court of Appeal has well established that a refugee claimant testimony is presumed to be true absent good and valid reason to doubt the veracity of that testimony. The absence of evidence cannot be relied upon to contradict his sworn testimony. By relying on the absence of evidence to draw a negative inference in the face of a reasonable explanation, the RPD erred because there was no reason to doubt the veracity of his testimony in this regard. [11] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The RAD finds after its own review and assessment of the evidence that there was ample good and valid reason for the RPD to doubt the veracity of the Appellant's testimony. The RPD drew a number of credibility findings which undermined the credibility of the Appellant's allegations concerning his involvement in Falun Gong, including some which were not contested by the Appellant. The RAD finds that in the context of these credibility findings, the absence of corroborating documents is a factor which can be considered by the RPD. [12] The RAD is further guided by Rule 11 (of the Refugee Protection Division Rules)3 which states: The claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing identity and other elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they were not provided and what steps were taken to obtain them. [13] The RAD notes that in his submissions on this issue, the Appellant acknowledged that his medical treatment evidence was "relevant evidence [that] was central to [his] claim.".4 In this regard, the RAD agrees. The only reason the Appellant began the illegal practice of Falun Gong was because he alleges he did not obtain relief from his illness through medical intervention. The credibility of his allegations that he suffered from this illness is central to his claim. Given that his medical condition was the motivation for him to undertake this illegal practice, it is reasonable to expect he would provide acceptable documents to establish that central element of his claim. [14] The Appellant has testified that medical documents exist but that he did not consider obtaining them. He acknowledges that he received advice from his consultant on what documents he should assemble for his claim. As noted by the RPD, the Appellant has been represented by competent counsel from the time he first made his refugee claim and that the importance of tendering this evidence is evident. The Appellant tendered a number of other documents in support of his claim; however the Appellant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the absence of the medical records or his lack of effort to obtain them. [15] The RAD notes that the objective evidence in the record establishes that medical records are available in China. The objective evidence states that In a 27 July 2009 interview with the Research Directorate, two officials with the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Ottawa indicated that patients with less serious illnesses can go to medical clinics or hospitals for diagnosis and treatment; in these cases, medical clinics and hospitals issue booklets to patients to record the nature of the illness and the recommended treatment. The Officials explained that the booklet can be used for multiple visits and is kept by the patient (China 27 July 2009). When illnesses are more serious, individuals are admitted to hospitals for diagnosis and treatment; in these cases, the medical records are very detailed and include information on symptoms (body temperature), physical exams, diagnosis and treatment (ibid.). When patients are discharged from the hospital, they receive a summary report, which usually outlines the patient's symptoms, diagnosis and treatment (ibid.). The original summary report is automatically given to the patient, while the hospital retains a copy (ibid.). Additionally, the Officials indicated that patients can request a photocopy of their full medical record and that hospitals archive records for up to ten years (ibid.). Lastly, the Officials stated that this system of recording medical information is followed throughout China...... 5 [16] While there is some contradiction in the objective evidence-some of which states that it is unlikely that hospital records are maintained in a standardized way-it is clear that the Appellant has testified that the medical records do exist. [17] The RAD notes that the issue of the absence of medical records was raised during the hearing. The Appellant had the opportunity to provide documents at the second sitting of the hearing or as post-hearing documents but has failed to do so. The RAD finds that the Appellant failed to provide persuasive documents or testimony to corroborate his allegations in this regard. [18] After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding in this regard. On the basis of the foregoing, the RAD finds that the Appellant's argument in this regard fails. Ability to Leave China Undetected [19] The RPD found it was not credible that the Appellant was able to leave China on his own passport given his allegations that he was wanted by the PSB and that a subpoena had been issued for him. [20] The Appellant submits that the RPD's finding that he did not use a smuggler to leave China is illogical. He argues that in the context of the RPD's findings on the Golden Shield, this finding leads to the converse finding that because he used a smuggler he was able to circumvent the exit control procedures. He argues that it is illogical to conclude that he did not use a smuggler because the Golden Shield exists. He also argues that the RPD ignored the documentary evidence which states that there are significant issues with both the rule of law and procedural implementation in China. Moreover, the Appellant argues that there is no evidence that he could not exit China using the services of a smuggler particularly in light of the rampant corruption among officials in China. [21] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. Although the RPD did not mention that corruption exists in China it does not mean that he ignored that evidence. Regardless, the RAD is aware that there is evidence in the record which establishes that corruption exists in China, however the objective evidence does not support that corruption extends to the airport security apparatus. As noted by the RPD, the RAD finds that the documentary evidence reveals that the Chinese government has a national computer network known as the Golden Shield Project,6and the PSB has access to a national policing database, which includes information about criminal fugitives and information on passports and exit and entry. The Golden Shield incorporated extensive tracking and control mechanism including facial recognition surveillance technology. [22] The RAD also notes from its own review and assessment of the evidence that the Exit and Entry Administration Law of China, which came into force on 1 July 2013, states the following:7 Article 11. Chinese citizens who exit or enter China shall submit their exit/entry documents such as passports or other travel documents to the exit/entry border inspection authorities for examination, go through the prescribed formalities, and may exit or enter upon examination and approval. Article 12. Under any of the following circumstances, Chinese citizens are not allowed to exit China: (...) are suspects or defendants in criminal cases; If a foreigner or a Chinese citizen must be prevented from leaving China at a border control station, the people's court accepting the case shall report up the hierarchy to the High People's Court, and a written notification of preventing person from departing through entry-exit port shall be issued by the Highest People's Court, and work with the public security organ of the corresponding level for handle control formalities. If the control port is not within the same province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the central government, the public security organ in the relevant province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the central government shall be contacted for the handle control formalities. Under emergency situations, if necessary, may first have the border control prevent departure and complete control formalities later. (China 20 Dec. 2012, Art. 404). [23] The panel also acknowledges that the documentation states that security officials have access to the Public Security Bureau of China's online database of citizens who have been convicted of crimes or are wanted by the authorities [also known as Policenet or the Golden Shield].8 Information Sharing by Public Security Officials In 10 February 2014, correspondence with the Research Directorate, the Executive Director of the Dui Hua Foundation, affirmed that airport security officials have access to the Public Security Bureau of China's online database of citizens who have been convicted of crimes or are wanted by the authorities [also known as Policenet or the Golden Shield]. Similarly, the representative of the Laogai Research Foundation stated that reports on "experiences of activists who have been detained while trying to board an international flight provide clear evidence that airport officials are connected to Policenet" (26 Feb. 2014). A colleague of Cao Shunli, who was also prevented from travelling to Geneva for the human rights training in September 2013, later publicized her own experience at the airport in Guangdong (HRIC 11 Oct. 2013). According to the Laogai research Foundation, the colleague indicates that when her passport was swiped by airport authorities, scanning equipment immediately made noises alerting airport officials that she was wanted by police. She was subsequently detained in the Guangdong Baiyun Airport and told that Shanghai police would not let her leave. She was then transported from Guangdong to Shanghai for detention and questioning. This woman's experience provides concrete evidence of airport officials coordinating with police departments in tracking and detaining a political dissident. (26 Feb. 2014)9 Security and Exit Control Procedures The representative of the Laogai Research Foundation wrote that the Chinese government checks the passports of citizens attempting to leave the country in order to ensure that they are suitable for foreign travel. Customs officials stamp the passports of citizens approved for foreign travel. Public security officials often confiscate passports held by individuals deemed unsuitable for foreign travel. (23 Feb. 2014).10 An undated article on the website of the Ministry of Public Security, entitled "Deepening the Implementation of the 'Golden Shield' Project states: that all police units nationwide have access to eight public security databases, including the "National Basic Population Information Database" (China n.d.). Also accessible through the databases is information on household registration [hukou], border exit and entry, road traffic, and criminal investigations (ibid.). 11 [24] In particular, the RAD notes that the system has been used to track down Falun Gong practitioners. The Chinese economist writing in Open Magazine affirms that: Cisco's Policenet has been helping the [Chinese Communist Party]'s public security organs to ferret out political dissidents and Falun Gong practitioners for years (17 Feb. 2010). 12 [25] The RAD finds that, in light of the Appellant's allegation that the PSB have continued to show interest in pursuing her and that they have issued a formal document indicating their interest in her, it is reasonable to expect that the local authorities would have entered her information into the database to further their efforts to apprehend her. [26] A July 2012, article published by the state-run Xinhua News Agency stated that police departments have established a database for criminals around the country, while the procuratorates have also started the inquiry system for bribery records.13 [27] Although it may be true that some public security officials fail to follow established laws and regulations in China, it would seem that based on the Appellant's allegations that in the case of the Appellant, the PSB have indicated their willingness to follow the rule of law by issuing a subpoena for him. In addition, given the allegations of their vigorous ongoing pursuit of the Appellant, it is reasonable to expect that they would utilize the tools available to them to apprehend the Appellant. In addition, as noted by the RPD, as of February 2011 the public security information network infrastructure has network coverage for local police stations of 99 percent. Accordingly, the RAD finds that it is more likely than not that if the PSB were pursuing the Appellant as he has alleged, that his name would have been entered into the Golden Shield data base. [28] Like the RPD, the RAD has considered that the Appellant used a smuggler to exit China. However, the RAD finds that the objective evidence concerning the Golden Shield and other border controls in place in China is compelling and convincing. While it might be possible for a smuggler to bypass some of the security controls, the RAD finds that, based on the evidence in the record, it is highly unlikely that the Appellant could have bypassed all of the security controls in place, particularly in light of the Appellant's allegations that there was a subpoena issued for him and that the PSB wanted to arrest him because of his Falun Gong activities. Accordingly, the RAD agrees with the RPD that in light of the Appellant's ability to leave China undetected, he was not, on a balance of probabilities, wanted by the PSB and as such did not use a smuggler to by-pass the security apparatus at the airport. [29] The RAD finds that the RPD is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibilities, common sense, and rationality, and may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.14 Where the RPD finds a lack of credibility based on inferences concerning the plausibility of evidence, there must be a basis in the evidence to support such inferences.15 In this case, there is an evidential foundation for the RPD's findings. [30] After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD and does not find it credible or plausible that the Appellant was able to leave China on his own passport after coming to the attention of the PSB and therefore draws a negative inference as it relates to the credibility of his allegations that he was being pursued by the PSB because of his Falun Gong activities. As such, the Appellant's argument fails. Microscopic Analysis Concerning Father's Death [31] The Appellant submits that the RPD drew a negative inference on the basis of a one-day discrepancy between the Hukou and his testimony in relation to the date his father died. The Appellant argues that he provided a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and that regardless, his ability to recall the specific date his father died has no logical bearing on the events which led to his departure from China or his practice of Falun Gong and whether he faces persecution in China. He argues that the RPD engaged in a microscopic analysis of a peripheral issue. [32] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. Contrary to the Appellant's argument, the death of the Appellant's father is not a peripheral issue. The Appellant has alleged that his father died as a direct result of the PSB's aggressive search for the appellant. This allegation is central to his risk of harm in China and can hardly be considered to be a peripheral matter. Consequently, the credibility of the Appellant's allegation of how his father died is an important assessment that the RPD should undertake. Furthermore, the RAD notes that the RPD's finding in this regard was part of its overall finding regarding the credibility of the Hukou and the credibility of the Appellant's testimony concerning his father's alleged death at the hands of the PSB. [33] The RAD notes that the Appellant has not contested the RPD's findings that the Hukou was a fraudulent document. The RPD noted a number of issues on the face of the document including deficiencies in the information provided about the Appellant's father that according to the objective evidence ought to have been included in the Hukou. [34] The RAD also notes that the RPD's findings concerning the discrepancy in the date of death is only one of many concerns it raised in its analysis. The RAD notes that the RPD also noted that there was a discrepancy in the details of how his father allegedly died. The RPD noted that although the Appellant alleged his father was killed in an altercation with the PSB his Hukou stated that his father died of an illness. The Appellant argues that he offered a reasonable explanation that the PSB did not want to disclose their involvement in his death by including it in the hukou. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation noting that his explanation did not explain away the discrepancy between his allegations and the supporting documents. [35] The RAD finds that the RPD's finding in this regard must be considered in the context of the totality of credibility findings. After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish his father's death and the circumstances surrounding his alleged death. In addition, the RAD agrees with the RPD's additional finding that on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's allegation that his father was killed by the PSB was an embellishment to buttress his claim. [36] The RAD finds that the Appellant's argument in this regard fails. Unreasonable assessment of the Supporting Documents [37] The Appellant submits that the RPD engaged in speculation with regard to the summons due to the unavailability of the envelope the summons was mailed in and erred by relying on the high prevalence of fraudulent documents. The Appellant further argues that the RPD failed to conduct an independent assessment of the documents. [38] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. Although the Appellant's submission refers to "documents" it only makes mention of the RPD treatment of the summons in its argument. The RAD finds that contrary to the Appellant's argument, the RPD did conduct an independent assessment of the summons. The Appellant points out that the Federal Court has recently held that although fraudulent documents are widely available in China, it does not mean every document out of China is necessarily fraudulent and that there is an obligation to examine and weigh the actual documents in front of it rather than rejecting them out of hand.16 [39] In the case at hand, it is clear that the RPD did examine and weigh the summons and it did not arbitrarily discount the summons solely on the basis of the prevalence of fraudulent documents coming out of China. The RPD has examined the original document and is open to draw conclusions about it. The RAD is cognizant that the Federal Court has said that the Board is under no obligation to send documents for forensic analysis.17 The RAD is also guided by the Federal Court decision in Sertkaya,18 which asserts that it is open for the Board to consider the authenticity of documentary evidence, and the ability of the claimant to obtain and use fraudulent documents. [40] The RAD also finds that the provenance of documents is another important consideration in that analysis. The RAD finds that in light of the RPD's credibility findings and given the uncontested finding that the Appellant tendered a fraudulent hukou in support of his claim, the credibility of his remaining documents is called into question. Given the Appellant's willingness to tender a fraudulent document in support of his claim and his inability to establish the provenance of the summons he tendered, the RAD agrees with the RPD's decision to afford the summons little weight. [41] The RAD also notes after its own review and assessment of the evidence that the documentary evidence establishes that although the Appellant refers to the document as a summons it is in fact a subpoena. A review of the examples provided in the objective evidence establishes document provided by the Appellant is consistent with a Chuanpio. The Chuanpio is described in the documentary evidence as a subpoena that is issued to a witness. The documentary evidence on the Chuanpaio states: "[s]ubpoeanas (chuanpiao) are served by people's courts to require all parties to criminal proceedings to appear in court (19 Sept. 2012). However, several sources note that witnesses frequently do not appear in court in China (Associate Professor, Seton Hall 14 Sept. 2012; US 24 May 2012, 18; ibid. 10 Oct. 2007, 52; HRIC 2001, 37). The US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 states that "fewer than 10 percent of subpoenaed witnesses appeared in court" (US 24 May 2012, 18). [42] The RAD notes that the same documentary evidence establishes that there are other court ordered documents (summonses) which are used to compel individuals charged with crimes to appear in court, usually in cases where there is no need to place an individual under arrest. In addition, there are other PSB issued summonses which compel an individual to appear for interrogation and investigation. The RAD finds that the Chuanpio is distinguished from these summonses because it is used to compel witnesses to court. The RAD notes that issuance of non-coercive subpoena is inconsistent with the Appellant's allegation that two of his fellow practitioners have been arrested by the PSB and that she fears the PSB are pursuing him to arrest him. The RAD notes the subpoena tendered by the Appellant has instructions listed under Attention for Points which instruct the person to attend on time and to bring the document as proof they are required to attend the court. The RAD finds that the presence of these instructions indicate that the document is a non-coercive measure that does not involve arrest or detention. [43] The RAD also notes that the prevalence of fraudulent documents available in China. Intelligence Unit (EIU) indicates that a United States (US) consular official In 12 June 2009 correspondence, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School, who specializes in the Chinese legal system, stated that "just about any document can be forged in China, and many are." A 2007 briefing paper published by the Economist based in southern China reported that fake passports in China are rare, while the ability to screen other documents is inhibited by "widespread fraud" ... According to the official, "you can't trust any [personal] documents in China," and the market for fraudulent documents is rapidly expanding... The official further indicated that documents are assumed to be fraudulent unless proven otherwise, and that the verification of documents is a "labour-intensive and time-consuming process" ... A 2009 Vancouver Sun article.19 [44] In light of the foregoing and the adverse credibility findings of the RPD, the RAD finds that it can give little weight to the subpoena. The RAD further finds that even if the subpoena could be afforded more weight, it would not overcome the cumulative credibility findings of the RPD. [45] Accordingly the Appellant's argument fails. [46] The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence on the basis of the totality of the evidence in the record, that the Appellant is not a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong and that he is not being pursued by the PSB. In Summary [47] Having reviewed all the evidence in this appeal, the RAD agrees with the RPD, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada and has never been a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in China. The RAD further agrees with the RPD, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not wanted by the authorities in China because of Falun Gong activities or for any other reason. Accordingly, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not satisfied his burden of establishing that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture. CONCLUSION [48] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "L. Favreau" Leonard Favreau July 8, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 2 Alyafi, Aghiad v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1091-14), Martineau, October 8, 2014, 2014 FC 952. 3 Rule 11, Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules, 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Argument, p. 22 para. 20. 5 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (31 October 2014), Item 3.3 6 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (31 October, 2014), item 14.3. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China (31 October 2014), item 10.4. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid 14 Numbi, Gaston Kipa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-92-12), Boivin, August 30, 2012; 2012 FC 1037, at 19. 15 Miral, Stefnie Dinisha v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3392-97), Muldoon, February 12, 1999. 16 Lin, Shou Gui v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4437-11), Russell, February 6, 2012, 2012 FC 157. 17 Farooqi, Shaukat Ali v. M.C.I. (F.C, no. IMM-5446-03), Harrington, October 12, 2004, 2004 FC 1396. 18 Sertkaya, Ismail v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-9058-03), Layden-Stevenson, May 21, 2004; 2004 FC 734. 19 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for China, (31 October 2014), item 3.22. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-04691