TB6-04390

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 : TB6-04390 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision June 21, 2016 Date de la décision Panel L. Favreau Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Jacqueline M. Lewis 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 XXXX (the "Appellant"), a citizen of China, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has submitted new evidence in support of his appeal but does not request an oral hearing. 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 [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he fears persecution in China on the basis of his activities and membership in the Shouters sect of the Christian underground house church in XXXX province. [4] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was heard on February 22, 2016. In a decision of March 9, 2016, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that the Appellant was not credible about the central elements of his claim. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his religious identity, treatment of his supporting documentary evidence and in assessing his credibility. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] The RAD finds that the recent Federal Court of Appeal 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. [7] The RAD concludes from its statutory analysis that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. Thus, after carefully considering the RPD's decision, the RAD carries out its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [8] As provided for in s. 110(3) of the IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and refugee claimant. Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [9] The Appellant has submitted the following documents as new evidence in this appeal: (a) A Globe and Mail newspaper article "From Hong Kong to Canada: inside a human smuggling plot"; and (b) Response to Information Request CHN104152.E, "Canada: The Church in Toronto". [10] The RAD's analysis of the admissibility of the proposed new evidence must begin first with the test set out in s. 110(4). The RAD finds that, in addition to the statutory requirements, further analysis of the evidence is required before the RAD can accept the proposed new evidence. In that regard, the RAD is guided by the analysis as set out in Raza.2 Although Raza is not entirely appropriate for the purpose of assessing evidence submitted to the RAD, the RAD is guided by the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Singh.3 Accordingly, the RAD has adapted the analysis in Raza to the assessment of evidence submitted to the RAD. [11] In assessing whether the proposed new evidence meets the statutory provisions of s. 110(4), the RAD considered the following: (a) First, did the evidence arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim? Here, the RAD may consider whether the evidence is capable of proving the current state of affairs in the country of feared persecution, or an event that occurred or a circumstance that arose after the rejection of the refugee claim.4 (b) The RAD will consider not only the date on which the document came into existence, but the timing of the event or circumstance which the document seeks to prove.5 For example, an affidavit or newspaper article may have been created after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, but the information in the document may be several years old, and the RAD may therefore find that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the claim, despite the date of the document. (c) It is important to note here that s. 110(4) does not contemplate whether the evidence arose after the RPD hearing, but rather after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. Where a document arose after the hearing but before the rejection of the refugee claim, it is necessary for the RAD to consider whether the Appellant could have presented the document to the RPD by way of a post-hearing submission. (d) If the evidence is capable of proving an event that occurred or circumstances that arose after the RPD hearing, then the evidence must be considered, and the RAD will proceed to assess the credibility, relevance, and materiality of the document.6 (e) Second, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, it must consider the next factor in s. 110(4). If the evidence is capable of proving only an event that occurred or circumstances that arose prior to the rejection, has the Appellant established that the evidence was not reasonably available for presentation to the RPD before it rejected the claim,7 or that it proves a fact that was unknown to him at the time of the hearing?8 If so, the RAD will proceed to assess the newness, credibility, and relevance of the evidence. (f) Third, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim and that it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection, it must consider the final part of the s. 110(4) test: could the Appellant reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence prior to the rejection of his refugee claim? If so, the evidence need not be considered.9 If the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to present the evidence to the RPD, the RAD will proceed to assess the newness, credibility, and relevance of the evidence. (g) If the proposed new evidence meets the tests set out in the statutory requirements and in Raza, the evidence will be admitted as evidence in the appeal. The materiality of the evidence will be considered in the context of the assessment made under section 110(6) of the IRPA. [12] The Appellant has submitted the Globe and Mail article as corroboration of the plausibility of his allegations that he exited China on his own passport with the assistance of a smuggler even though at the time he was wanted by the police. He argues that the article demonstrates that elaborate schemes are in place for bypassing Chinese security measures in place at airports and that he could not have reasonably been expected to have tendered this evidence at his hearing because he could not have anticipated that the RPD would impugn his credibility on the basis he exited China using his own passport. [13] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments in this regard. The RAD notes that the issue of the Appellant's ability to leave China was canvassed at the hearing by the RPD member. In addition, the Appellant was represented by competent counsel. The RAD finds that the issue of the Appellant's ability to exit China using his own passport is highly relevant to his allegations that he is wanted by the authorities in China. [14] The RAD finds that this document does not meet the test in Section 110(4). The document did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim. The RAD finds that he could reasonably have been expected to present this document to the RPD. The RAD finds that this does not meet the statutory requirements as new evidence in this appeal. The RAD finds there is a requirement on the Appellant to provide an explanation about why the proposed new evidence meets the statutory requirement. The Court has held that, if an applicant believes that the evidence meets the requirements of paragraph 113(a), it is up to the applicant to provide explanations as to why it conforms to the statutory requirement.10 For example, if the evidence pre-dates the RPD's decision, it is the duty of the person submitting the new evidence to provide why it had not been placed in front of the RPD under the express statutory requirements under paragraph 113(a).11 [15] Under a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), the Federal Court has held that it is the applicant's obligation to provide an explanation as to why the evidence could not have been presented to the RPD. Evidence can be rejected for this reason, and this is in conformity with the requirements set out in the IRPA and found in Raza.12 [16] Similarly, the Refugee Appeal Division Rules13 (RAD Rules) provide that the Appellant's Record must contain: (i) a written statement indicating whether the Appellant is relying on any evidence referred to in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, and (ii) a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding how any documentary evidence that the Appellant wants to rely on in the appeal meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and how that evidence relates to the Appellant. [17] The RAD has considered the recent Federal Court decision in Singh14 and finds that there is nothing in the decision which takes away the burden of the Appellant to provide an explanation of how the proposed new evidence meets the test set out in s. 110(4) of the IRPA. [18] The RAD finds that the Appellant has provided an insufficient explanation why it was not reasonable for him to tender that evidence prior to the rejection of his claim. For these reasons, the Appellant's proposed new evidence is not admissible in this appeal. [19] The RAD further finds that the article fails as new evidence under the factors set out in Raza.15 The RAD notes that the article refers to the smuggling of Chinese citizens from Hong Kong to Canada using fraudulent passports. There is no evidence in the article that smugglers have the capacity or systems that enable them to smuggle wanted persons using their own passports out of mainland China. Furthermore, the RAD notes that there is no indication in the article that smugglers had the ability to bribe airport officials. [20] As such, this document is not admitted as new evidence in this appeal. [21] The RAD further finds that, even if the document was accepted as evidence in this appeal, it would be given little weight and would not overcome the RAD's serious concerns with respect to the Appellant's ability to exit China using his own passport. [22] The Appellant tendered a second document, identified by the Appellant as Response to Information Request (RIR) CHN104152.E. "Canada: The Church in Toronto". The RAD notes, however, that the Appellant has misidentified the number of the RIR and that the actual RIR number is CAN104152.E.16 The Appellant argues that the proposed new evidence meets the test of section 110(4) of the IRPA because he could not have reasonably been expected in the circumstances to have presented this evidence at the hearing because he could not know that the RPD would determine in its Reasons that his church was not of the Shouter denomination. He argues that the new evidence establishes that the RPD erred by finding that his church in Toronto was not a Shouter church. [23] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument. The RAD finds this evidence is relevant to the Appellant's religious identity. However, the RAD finds that the Appellant could reasonably have been expected to have tendered it to the RPD prior to the rejection of his claim. The RAD notes that the Appellant's religious identity is central to his allegations of risk in China. The RAD further notes that, during the hearing, the RPD questioned the Appellant about its concerns that the Church of Toronto was not a Shouter church. The Appellant has not provided any explanation why he was unable to tender this document as post-hearing evidence. [24] Accordingly, this proposed evidence in not evidence in this appeal. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [25] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of credibility and in its assessment of his identity as a Shouter and the risk of persecution faced by Shouters in China. Credibility The Appellant's Misrepresentations at the Port of Entry [26] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's failure to make a refugee claim at his first available opportunity when he arrived at the airport and from giving Immigration officials false information. [27] The RPD noted that, when the Appellant arrived in Toronto, he was travelling with a young man whom the Appellant insisted was his son. The immigration officer noted contradictions with the Appellant's visa and the information he provided in his interview and found the claimant inadmissible to Canada. The Appellant then made a refugee claim during the Minister's Delegate Review process. The RPD reasoned that, given the Appellant did not travel to Toronto with the "snakehead" and further found that the fact that he is a literate and capable individual, his motive for lying to Immigration officials was not reasonable. [28] The Appellant submits he was following the instructions of his smuggler who told him that if he tried to make a refugee claim at the airport he would simply be deported back to China. He argues that a person with a genuine fear would go to great length to avoid deportation back to the country where he fears persecution and, as such, following the instructions of his smuggler was reasonable. In addition, he argues that he lacks the expertise in the nuances of claiming refugee protection abroad and relied on the advice of the smuggler in this regard. The fact that the smuggler did not accompany him to Canada does not reduce his subjective fear of being deported or his desire to avoid deportation. Even though his is literate and capable, it does not mean that he has any expertise in claiming refugee protection. [29] The Appellant further submits that the RPD failed to take into consideration the context of why he lied and that he voluntarily told the truth to Immigration officials without delay. [30] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD acknowledges that, in some instances, it may be reasonable that a person would lie to immigration officials where the person fears he may be deported back to the country in which he faces persecution. However, the RAD notes that, in this case, the Appellant has not demonstrated that he truly feared deportation. It is true that the Appellant testified to this fact; however, the RAD finds his actions belie his testimony. The RAD notes that the evidence reveals that, immediately upon being confronted with the discrepancies between what he disclosed in his interview and the information on his visa application, the Appellant acknowledged the lie and sought refugee protection. The RAD finds it reasonable to expect that, if the Appellant truly believed that if he did not lie his way into Canada, he would be sent back to China to face persecution, he would have made a more concerted effort to further the lie rather than, as he argues, "tell the truth without delay". The RAD finds it makes little sense that, if his sole motive for lying that he believed he would be deported if he attempted to claim refugee protection at the airport, he would have made every effort to advance the false story of his purpose of coming to Canada before revealing his intention to claim refugee protection. The RAD finds that his willingness to seek refugee protection so quickly after being confronted with the lie undermines his allegations that he feared he would be deported if he claimed refugee protection at the airport. [31] Moreover, although the Appellant argues in his pleadings that he told the truth without delay after being confronted with the lie, the RAD finds that the evidence reveals that the Appellant did not disclose to Immigration officials the truth about his travel companion not being his son. The RAD finds that the Appellant did not disclose this lie until well after his interview at the airport and after seeking refugee protection. The RAD finds that, in withholding this information, the Appellant demonstrated that he was willing to continue to lie to Immigration officials even after making his refugee claim. [32] The RAD finds that, in light of its own analysis of the evidence in relation to the RPD's finding, the RPD did not err in drawing an adverse credibility finding based on the Appellant's misrepresentations at the port of entry. Exit from China [33] The RPD drew an adverse credibility finding based on the Appellant's ability to exit China on his own passport at a time he alleges he was wanted by the Public Security Bureau (PSB). The RPD found that the Appellant exited China on his own identity document, thus undermining his allegation that he was wanted by the police. [34] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from his ability to exit China on his own passport. [35] The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence, that the documentary evidence in the record reveals that the Chinese government has a national computer network known as the Golden Shield Project,17 and 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 mechanisms including facial recognition surveillance technology. [36] 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 July 1, 2013, states the following:18 (...) 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). [37] The RAD also notes 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).19 3. 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)20 4. 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).21 [38] 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.).22 [39] 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).23 [40] In addition, the representative of the Laogai Research Foundation provided the following information: [T]he Golden Shield incorporates extensive tracking and control mechanisms such as real-name online registration requirements, GPS monitoring, and facial recognition surveillance technology in a multi-pronged approach to identify potentially disruptive individuals. Policenet, a component of the Golden Shield, stores a wealth of information on Chinese citizens and connects the various agencies and levels of command within the public security apparatus. This integrated system enables Chinese public security forces to effectively target and neutralize political dissidents. (26 Feb. 2014)24 [41] According to a Canadian embassy official in Beijing, a traveller will pass through four points: a check-in counter, a security checkpoint for entry into the airport's secure zone, departure immigration where border authorities are located, and the boarding gate; at each of the points, the traveller's passport may be checked, with scanning occurring at the check-in counter and the immigration checkpoint.25 Another source cited in the National Documentation Package (NDP), an assistant director for aviation security at the International Air Transport Association ("IATA"), indicates that three checkpoints exist, without making reference to the boarding gate, and states that a traveller's passport is checked at each of these locations.26 The IATA official also noted that specific departure procedures vary at each airport but that the general procedures are consistent.27 [42] The NDP also indicates that freedom to exit China is not absolute.28 Under Article 12 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law of China, exit from the country is denied under certain circumstances, including instances where the citizen does not hold valid exit documents, or is a suspect or defendant in a criminal case.29 Chinese border authorities have also effectively implemented exit control measures, although there are isolated incidents of successful evasion,30 and it appears that the database is automatically searched when border authorities scan a passport.31 [43] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by overlooking "relevant and binding case law" that resolves the issue of whether it is plausible that a person could be wanted by the authorities in China and nevertheless be able to bypass border security and escape the country using their own passport. The Appellant relies on recent Federal Court decisions in Zhang,32 Sun33 and Ren34 to support their argument that the RPD's finding is unreasonable. [44] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD finds that the facts in Zhang, Sun and Ren can be distinguished from the facts in the present case in that there is insufficient evidence which establishes that the "smuggler" bribed anyone. The RAD notes that the Appellant only relies on his testimony that the smuggler told him he had bribed border control officials. The Appellant has no direct knowledge of border guards being bribed. [45] Furthermore, the RAD notes that, while the Federal Court decision in Sun was determined in March 2015, it was relative to a decision of the RPD that was made in November 2013. A review of that RPD's decision in the Sun35 matter reveals that the decision was based on the evidence available in the October 2012 NDP. In the Sun matter, the reviewing court made reference to the RPD's reliance on an Information Request reporting the existence and expansion of a national Chinese policing database used by the PSB and at ports of entry and exit of the country and that the same document also mentions that challenges remain with respect to information sharing between regional police units. [46] The RAD notes, however, the conclusions drawn about the plausibility of the Appellant being able to leave China on his own passport in this matter is based on the most current information in the NDP. The RAD notes that, 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]" and that there is concrete evidence of airport officials coordinating with police departments in tracking and detaining wanted persons.36 [47] The RAD also finds that suggestion, as set out in Ren and Zhang, that bribing "one person with a computer would be sufficient" to allow the Appellant to exit China without difficulty is not applicable in the circumstances of this case. The RAD finds that the suggestion implies that one bribe could facilitate the removal of police interest from the Golden Shield computer system. The RAD notes that the Appellant alleges that the PSB continued to pursue the Appellant at his home after his departure from China. If the smuggler was able to bribe an official to alter computerized records of the police interest in the Appellant, the RAD finds it makes little sense that the PSB would continue to pursue him after the fact. [48] Furthermore, the RAD finds that evidence reveals that the Golden Shield system is an intensive security apparatus that is far-reaching and encompassing. The RAD finds that, given the importance of this system to Chinese authorities in monitoring its citizens, it is reasonable to expect that the use of the apparatus is also monitored and that there are redundant systems in place to prevent the system from being compromised by a single individual. The RAD finds that this allegation undermines the suggestion that his name was somehow removed from the computer system. [49] The RAD also notes that the evidence suggests that the Appellant's passport was examined numerous times at two different airports in China. The RAD finds it highly improbable that the smuggler would have the prior knowledge of who to bribe in order to facilitate safe travel through each checkpoint. The RAD also notes that Article 51 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People's Republic of China requires that companies involved in the transportation of goods and passengers in and out of Chinese ports must declare information on the goods and passengers in advance of their departure or entry to the country.37 Chinese border authorities are provided what is described as "advance passenger information" on arriving and departing passengers.38 This information contains a number of details of that passenger, including full name, date of birth, gender, nationality, country of residence, travel document type, passport number, expiry date, and issuing country.39 With respect to flights into the country, it appears that China maintains a "stop list", which bars the passenger from boarding the aircraft; however, the NDP remains silent on whether a similar list exists for outbound flights.40 In any event, it is evident that border authorities are provided detailed information on the passengers aboard outbound flights. [50] The RAD finds that, in light of the Appellant's allegation that the PSB have continued to show interest in vigorously pursuing him, it is reasonable to expect that the local authorities would have entered his information into the database particularly in light of his allegation that there was a summons issued to further their efforts to apprehend him. [51] The RAD is aware that there is evidence in the record which establishes that there is corruption in China. However, the RAD notes that the very comprehensive Australian Refugee Review Tribunal Background Paper on Official Corruption in China and the other objective evidence in the record makes no mention that corruption extends to the airport security apparatus. The objective evidence states that corrupt practices are evident in many areas of Chinese society, but most sources agree that corruption problems are concentrated in sectors with extensive state involvement, such as construction, land use, infrastructure, property development and banking. The former Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, said in March 2012 that "corruption tends to occur frequently in departments that possess great power and in areas where the management of funds is centralised."41 [52] The RAD does not accept the Appellant's evidence as credible with respect to his passage out of China while wanted by the PSB. Although the panel does accept that there may be successful evasion of border controls and that a "snakehead" may successfully bribe border authorities, in the circumstances described in this matter, the RAD finds that the Appellant was not able to circumvent such controls. [53] The RAD finds that, although the Appellant argues that the issue regarding the plausibility of a wanted person leaving China on their own passport is settled by case law, the RAD finds that is not the case. The RAD's finding in this regard is supported in the Refugee Appeal Division decision of X (Re), 2015 CanLII 72857 (CA IRB), addressing similar circumstances: [23] API [advance passenger information] requirements which have been in effect for years, in conjunction with the highly effective Golden Shield program, makes it, on a balance of probabilities, unlikely a wanted person could depart China from an international airport using a passport with his own name, date of birth, and photograph in it. The likelihood of bribing so many people as would be involved in a person's departure is miniscule. From the person selling the ticket, to the check in counter, to the security checkpoint, the customs and immigration people onto the person who checks the Boarding pass, all of these people may be randomly in place and make it nearly impossible for anyone to know who to bribe at what point. It is simply implausible that a wanted man will escape China on his own legitimate documents.42 [54] This finding is also supported by Federal Court decisions Zeng, Su, and Cao,43 in which the Federal Court has supported findings that traveling unimpeded through Chinese exit controls is inconsistent with being wanted by Chinese authorities. 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. [55] The RAD finds, on the basis of its analysis and in the context of the totality of the adverse findings noted, that the Appellant's allegation that he is wanted by the police is not credible. [56] After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD's findings 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. [57] The RAD notes that the RAD and the RPD are entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibility, common sense and rationality, and it may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.44 Where the panel recognizes a lack of credibility based on inferences concerning the plausibility of evidence, there must be a basis in the evidence to support such inferences.45 In this case, there is an evidential foundation for the panel's findings. [58] After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD's findings 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 Christian Shouter activities. Summons [59] The Appellant tendered a summons he alleges was left for him at his home in China by the PSB. The RPD found that the summons was not a genuine document on the basis of the following: * Credibility concerns, in particular, the finding regarding the Appellant's ability to exit China on his own passport; * The simplistic nature of the document which makes it susceptible to fraud; * The availability of fraudulent documents in China; and * The Appellant alleged that he had access to fraudulent documents in China including a passport in support of his application for his Canadian visa. [60] The Appellant submits that the RPD's analysis is flawed in this regard. The Appellant argues that the RPD has failed to clarify how it determined from the fact that, since it was a simplistic document, it must be false. He further argues that there was no evidence in the record on which the RPD could base such a finding. He also argues that the summons is consistent with the example in the National Documentation Package and that there is a presumption of authenticity afforded to foreign documents. The Appellant further argues that the RPD had a duty to consider and assess the summons independently of its previous credibility findings on the basis of the totality of the evidence. In addition, the Appellant argues that the Federal Court has held that the availability of fraudulent documents in China does not relieve the RPD of the duty to determine whether documents are genuine or not. Finally, the Appellant argues that the RPD's reasoning with regard to his smuggler supplying false documents to him to facilitate his travel to Canada is flawed. He argues that, just because he used some false documents, it does not make all of his documents fraudulent. The Appellant further argues that the RPD did not challenge the authenticity of other documents he tendered in support of his claim. For these reasons, the Appellant submits that the RPD's finding on the summons is unsustainable. [61] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD finds that the Appellant's argument fails to take into consideration that the RPD did not find the summons was a non-genuine document on the basis of any of its individual concerns. Rather, the RPD made its determination on the basis of the totality of its findings. The RAD also finds that the RPD did not engage in inverted reasoning in finding the summons was not genuine. The RPD clearly provided a basis for finding that the summons was fraudulent beyond its inconsistency with its conclusion already reached on credibility. [62] The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence, that in addition to the findings of the RPD, there are other grounds for the RAD to find that the documents cannot be relied upon. The RAD notes that the summons tendered by the Appellant is a non-coercive investigative summons issued under the authority of Article 82 of the Public Security and Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China (PSAPL) and which required the Appellant to appear for interrogation. The RAD notes that Article 82 specifically states that anyone who evades a summons can result in a compulsory summons.46 The RAD notes, however, that the Appellant has not tendered a coercive summons even though he has failed to report as required. [63] The RAD finds that the Chinese authorities view adherents of the Shouter faith as members of a cult.47 The RAD notes that the documentary evidence in the record indicates that the Shouter sect of Christianity is a banned religion in China and is identified, along with certain other religions, as an "evil cult".48 Furthermore, religions deemed as evil cults are subject to the most severe treatment of all and are pursued by an extra-judicial law enforcement branch known as the 6-10 Office.49 [64] The RAD notes that the 2014 China Aid Association Report states that the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China created a list of "Identified Cult Organizations in China". Among the listed cults were so-called Christian "heretical" faith communities such as the Shouters, the Church of the Almighty God, the Church of Total Scope, the Church of Disciples, and the Three Teams of Servants Church. According to China Aid statistics, more than 20,000 religious practitioners have been accused of being "heretics" and were taken into police custody during the CPCs "anti-cult" campaign in 2014, of which approximately 1,100 have been convicted on criminal charges and sentenced. [65] There is evidence in the National Documentation Package that family members of "evil cult" practitioners are likewise often subject to arbitrary imprisonment and harassment,50 and are often pressured by authorities to force the accused into compliance or submission.51 In light of the objective evidence regarding the vigorous efforts the authorities undertake to pursue members of the faith and the Appellant's allegations of the arrest of co-practitioners and ongoing visits to his family home as well as the allegation that the PSB informed the Appellant's employer, it is reasonable to expect that a coercive summons would have been issued when the Appellant failed to report for the interview. [66] The RAD finds that, in light of the fact that the Appellant has testified that his family notified him about the issuance of the non-coercive summons, it is also reasonable to expect that, if a coercive summons had been issued for the Appellant, he would have been notified by his family. The RAD finds that the absence of a compulsory summons when it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would have been issued such a summons undermines the genuineness of the summons he did tender. [67] Furthermore, the RAD notes that the documentary evidence states that the PSB summons can be oral or written and can be issued only after a case has been filed for investigation.52 [68] Regardless of the form they take, public security summonses cannot last more than twelve hours, or twenty-four hours if the person is suspected of administrative violations punishable by detention.53 However, the Appellant has alleged that the PSB attended his home in an effort to arrest him. In addition, he alleges that three of his co-practitioners were arrested by the PSB and remained in custody for over nine months. [69] The RAD finds that the alleged actions of the PSB and the arrest and detention of co-practitioners is inconsistent with the use of a public security summons. The RAD notes that the documentary evidence states that coercive summons and arrest warrants are instruments that can be used by the PSB.54 The RAD finds that, in light of the documentary evidence, the police employs the use of the extra-judicial law enforcement branch known as the 6-10 Office to investigate cult religions; it is reasonable to expect that, given the allegations of the PSB's efforts to arrest the Appellant and their arrest of the Appellant's co-practitioners, if the PSB were going to employ the use of a summons, they would employ the use of these coercive instruments to carry out their intention to arrest the Appellant, rather than employ the use of an investigative instrument. [70] The RAD further notes that the Public Security and Administrative Punishment Law states that penalties resulting from enforcement under the provisions of the PSAPL in relation to participation in the practice of cults cannot exceed 15 days,55 which is inconsistent with his allegations that the co-practitioners who were arrested are still in detention. [71] The RAD finds that the Appellant's allegations and testimony are inconsistent with the objective evidence in the record with regard to the provisions of the PSAPL. The RAD finds that, on the basis of the foregoing, little weight can be given to this summons in establishing that the Appellant is being pursued by the PSB. Pursuit by the Authorities [72] The RPD found on the basis of the foregoing findings that the Appellant is not being pursued by authorities in China for his Shouter activities. After its own review and analysis of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding in this regard. [73] The RAD finds that, in addition to the RPD's findings, the RAD notes that the documentary evidence in the record contains very specific information with regard to persecution of Christian churches in China. In addition, Counsel disclosed documentation56 on the issue of the persecution of Christians in China. A careful review of this documentation and the Board's documentation show that, while some of the documentation identifies incidents of persecution in specific provinces in China, none of the documents refer to incidents of persecution of the Shouter sect or other Christians in XXXX Province at the time the Appellant alleges his house church was raided. [74] Given that information can flow to and from mainland China via means of personal contact, informal non-government organization (NGO) networks, telephone calls, etc. and, that in the past, there has been documentary evidence dealing with detention and arrests of Christians, and because of the large number of documentary sources that have a vested interest in highlighting any and all information that negatively impacts on religious freedom, the panel determines that it would be reasonable to have before it information of state actions taken against Christians in XXXX province if any actions were taken. The Appellant alleges that three members of his house church were arrested and remain in custody. Given the forgoing, it is reasonable to expect that such an egregious act by the PSB would be reported. If such was the case, it is reasonable to expect that documentation from XXXX province indicating actions by state authorities against parishioners at the time of the alleged incident, and more recently, should be before the panel. The absence of specific documentation in recent years in Fujian province detailing persecution of Christian or Shouter churches in Fujian province undermines the Appellant's allegations that he is being pursued by authorities in China due to his Shouter sect activities. [75] The RAD finds, based on the totality of the evidence in the record and the adverse findings, and on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not being pursued by the authorities in China for his Shouter activities or for any other reason. Did the RPD Err in its Assessment of the Appellant's Religious Identity? [76] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred when it found that he was not a genuine practitioner of the Shouter sect of Christianity despite his ability to correctly answer questions put to him about his practice of the faith. He argues that there is insufficient reason to reject his allegation that he is a practitioner of the Shouter faith. He further argues that the RPD failed to question him about the events which led up to his decision to join the faith, and, as such, the RPD ignored evidence that could have corroborated his practice. In addition, he argues that the RPD imposed an overly high threshold on his knowledge of the faith and was microscopic in its analysis. The Appellant further argues that the RPD erred in finding that his knowledge of the Shouter faith was gained in Canada rather than from his practice in China. [77] The Appellant further submits that the RPD erred by finding that the church he attends in Toronto is not a Shouter church. He argues that the RPD misinterpreted the letter from the church which stated that it was not affiliated with the Shouter sect in China to mean that it was not a Shouter church but an ordinary Christian church. The Appellant argues that the RPD used this misapprehension of the evidence to also find that he could practice at any underground church in China. The Appellant argues that the jurisprudence is clear that he has the right to practice the faith of his choosing. [78] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. While the RAD does find that the RPD has misapprehended the evidence of the church letter, the RAD nonetheless finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not a genuine practitioner of the Shouter sect of Christianity or any other Christian church. With regard to the letter from the church, the RAD notes that the letter states clearly that it is not affiliated with the Shouter sect in China; however, this does not mean that it is not a Shouter church affiliated with the Shouter sect elsewhere or that its underlying philosophy and tenets of the faith are dissimilar to his practice in China. This unfortunate error by the RPD led in part to its determination that the church attended by the Appellant in Toronto was an ordinary Christian church and that, if the Appellant chose to practice his faith in China, he could do so at any Christian church of his choosing. This was an error. The RAD finds that the RPD's determination that the Church of Toronto is not a Shouter church was based on a misapprehension of the evidence. The RAD further finds that the RPD erred in determining that the Appellant could practice his faith in any church in China. The RAD finds that the jurisprudence is clear that it is not up to the Board to determine how the Appellant should practice his faith. [79] The RAD finds that, regardless of the aforementioned errors, on the basis of the foregoing findings and on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant's allegations that he was a practitioner of the Shouter sect in China and that he is wanted by the police in China are not credible. The RAD agrees with the RPD that, while it is true that he has some knowledge of the faith, the Appellant has alleged that he had been attending a church since his arrival in Canada. As such, the knowledge he possesses could easily have been gained in Canada. The RAD notes that merely having some information regarding basic teachings and practice or the lack of such information does not necessarily reflect genuine or false practice. The RAD finds that little weight can be given to the Appellant's ability to answer questions about Shouter Christians. [80] Furthermore, even though the Appellant was able to correctly answer some questions put to him about the faith, the RAD finds those correct responses could not overcome the serious credibility findings. The RAD finds that, given the serious credibility finding, the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient reliable evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a genuine Shouter in China. [81] On the basis of the totality of the adverse findings, the RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence, that the Appellant is not a genuine member of the Shouter Christian sect and that he is not being pursued by the PSB. [82] The RAD acknowledges it is difficult to make a judgement regarding the genuineness of a person's religious practice. However, on the basis of a full assessment of the evidence, the RAD finds that the Appellant is not a genuine practicing Shouter Christian or a Christian of any other denomination, and that these credibility findings raise a significant doubt about his general credibility. Having found that the Appellant is not a practicing Shouter Christian, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities and in the context of findings noted above, that whatever knowledge of the Shouter sect of Christianity the Appellant possesses was obtained in Canada for the purpose of supporting a fraudulent refugee claim. In the context as noted above and on the basis of the totality of evidence disclosed and in the context of the Appellant's knowledge of Shouter sect Christian teachings, the RAD therefore finds that the Appellant is not a genuine practicing Shouter Christian or a Christian of any other denomination. Risk to Shouters in China [83] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of the risk to members of the Shouter faith in China. Having found that the Appellant is not a genuine practitioner of the faith, the RAD finds that there is no need to determine whether the RPD erred in this regard. Sur Place [84] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in omitting the issue of whether a sur place claim exists. He argues that whether or not the RPD found he was a practicing Shouter in China, it was nonetheless obligated to consider his practice of his faith in Canada. The Appellant further argues that the RPD erred in discounting his activities in Canada merely because it did not believe that the Appellant was wanted by the authorities in China and without considering his activities in Canada. [85] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The RAD finds that the RPD did in fact consider the Appellant's activities in Canada. A review of the hearing recording reveals that the RPD questioned the Appellant about his participation in the church in Canada. The RAD further notes that the reasons did address whether his activities in Canada had come to the attention of Chinese authorities. While it may be true that the RPD's reasons on this issue could have been more explicit the RAD finds that the RPD nonetheless did consider the issue of sur place. [86] Regardless, the RAD has considered whether the Appellant's activities in Canada would place him at risk of persecution. Having previously found the Appellant's testimony with regard to his Shouter activities in China not credible, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that his claim that he was a Shouter Christian in China was made to further a fraudulent refugee claim. [87] The RAD also finds that there is no persuasive evidence that the Appellant's Shouter activities in Canada have come to the attention of the Chinese authorities or that he would be perceived to be a genuine practitioner. The RAD notes that the Appellant has alleged that his desire to engage in the practice of Falun Gong took place as a result of circumstances which occurred in China. He alleges that his continued practice of his alleged belief system in Canada is based on his adherence to his practice in China. Having found that he was not a practitioner in China and having no evidence of desire to begin the practice in Canada, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities and in the context of the findings noted above, that the Appellant engaged in Falun Gong activities in Canada only for the purpose of furthering a fraudulent refugee claim. [88] The RAD finds that the Appellant's letter from the Church of Toronto does not outweigh the findings of the RAD and cannot usurp the finding that the panel must make. The RAD notes the words of Justice Gleason, in Su,57 where the claimant alleged a sur place Falun Gong claim: [17] Contrary to what the applicant asserts, the Board did assess the sur place claim and the evidence that the applicant tendered in support of his assertion that he was a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada. It simply found this evidence insufficient to establish the genuineness of the claimed practice. There is nothing unreasonable in this conclusion, especially when viewed in light of the determination that the applicant fabricated what had occurred in China. In short, there is nothing unreasonable in finding that a few letters and pictures do not establish that a claimant is a genuine adherent to a religion, especially where, as here, he has lied about being a practitioner in order to make a fraudulent refugee claim. In this regard, I endorse the comment of Justice Pinard in Jin at paragraph 20, that: [I]t would be absurd to grant a sur place claim every time a pastor provides a letter attesting to an applicant's membership in his church.58 [89] The RAD finds that the evidence in this case is not sufficient to establish a sur place claim. [90] In the context as noted above and on the basis of the totality of evidence, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not a genuine Shouter practitioner nor would he be perceived to be one in China. The RAD finds that, in light of those findings and after an examination of the record, the Appellant would not face persecution or any other risk due to his activities in Canada. IN SUMMARY [91] 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 Christian. 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 Shouter Christian activities or for any other reason. [92] 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 [93] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "L. Favreau" L. Favreau June 21, 2016 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 3 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96. 4 Raza, para. 13.3(a). 5 Raza, para. 16. 6 Raza, para. 13.5(b). 7 Raza, para. 13.5(a). 8 Raza, para. 13.3(b). 9 Raza, para. 13.5(a). 10 Bengabo, Serge Cedrick v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2750-08), Shore, February 23, 2009, 2009 FC 186, at para. 23. 11 Jessamy, Gracel Bernadet v. M.C.I. (F.C., nos. IMM-2302-09, IMM-2639-09), Phelan, May 4, 2010, 2010 FC 489; See also: Aleziri, Abdullah Mohammed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-360-08), Lagacé, January 15, 2009, 2009 FC 38; and Haque v. M.C.I. and M.P.S.E.P. (F.C., no. IMM-5356-08) O'Keefe, June 28, 2010, 2010 FC 703. 12 Tran, Hoa Van v. M.P.S.E.P. and M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3222-09), Beaudry, February 19, 2010, 2010 FC 175. See also Founding, Allen Robin v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2182-09), Shore, May 14, 2009, 2009 FC 500. (This is a motion for a stay of removal. Leave to be heard was denied on July 7, 2009 by Justice Harrington.) 13 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-257/index. html. See RAD Rules 3(3)(d)(i) and (g)(iii), 5(2)(d)(ii), and 29(3). 14 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no., IMM-6711-13), Gagné, 28 October 2014, 2014 FC 1022. 15 Raza, Syed Masood v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-11-07), Linden, Sharlow, Ryer, December 6, 2007, 2007 FCA 385. 16 RPD's Record, p. 680, RIR CAN104152.E 17 RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (October 30, 2015), item 10.4, Response to Information Request (RIR) CHN104762.E and item 14.3, RIR CHN104761.E. 18 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3. 19 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3. 20 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3. 21 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3. 22 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 10.4. 23 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 10.4. 24 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 10.4. 25 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 3.24, para. 3.1. 26 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 3.24. 27 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 3.24. 28 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3. 29 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3, at p. 1. 30 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3, at pp. 2-7 31 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3, at p. 6. 32 Zhang, Xiu Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3703-07), Dawson, April 23, 2008, 2008 FC 533. 33 Sun, Hongxin v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-8088-13), de Montigny, March 27, 2015, 2015 FC 387. 34 Ren, FeiHu v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1558-15), Boswell, December 18, 2015, 2015 FC 1402. 35 Sun, supra, footnote 33. 36 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.3. 37 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.11, RIR CHN104782.E. 38 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.15, RIR CHN105153.E, at pp. 2-4. 39 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.15, at p. 3. 40 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 14.15, at p. 5. 41 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item. 7.4. 42 X (Re), 2015 CanLII 72857 (CA IRB), at para. 23. 43 Zeng, Weili v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2337-13), O'Keefe, November 12, 2014, 2014 FC 1060, at para 32; Su, Jialu v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4968-14), Fothergill, May 25, 2015, 2015 FC 666, at para. 17; Cao, Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6248-13), Noël, March 12, 2015, 2015 FC 315, at para. 19. 44 Numbi, Gaston Kipa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-92-12), Boivin, August 30, 2012, 2012 FC 1037, at 19. 45 Miral, Stefnie Dinisha v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3392-97), Muldoon, February 12, 1999. 46 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 9.14, Public Security and Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 82. 47 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 12.1, US Department of State, China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau). International Religious Freedom Report for 2014. 48 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 12.2, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF Annual Report 2015, p. 35. 49 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 2.3, United Kingdom Home Office, Country of Origin Information (COI) Report: China, 20 December 2013, p. 37. 50 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 2.3, pp. 42-43. 51 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 2.3. 52 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 9.14, Public Security and Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 82. 53 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 9.14. 54 Ibid., NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 9.5, Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2012 Amendment). 55 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 9.14, Public Security and Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 27. 56 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Counsel's disclosure, pp. 178-257, 295-617, and 662-677. 57 Su, Hao Wen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7356-12), Gleason, May 17, 2013, 2013 FC 518. 58 Su, Hao Wen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7356-12), Gleason, May 17, 2013, 2013 FC 518, para. 17. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-04390