TB5-14101

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 : TB5-14101 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 4, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Shelley Levine Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX ("Appellant"), a citizen of the People's Republic of China ("China"), appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant is not submitting any new evidence and he is requesting an oral hearing. He requests that the appeal be allowed and that the matter be returned to the RPD for re-determination. Alternatively, he requests that the decision of the RPD be set aside and the Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") find the Appellant to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Act ("IRPA") the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant states that he suffered pain in his XXXX for several years as a result of XXXX. He saw Chinese and western doctors who recommended various remedies but they did not help him. In XXXX 2014, he was introduced to Falun Gong by a friend and he decided to try it. His friend taught him the five exercises and brought him to his group practice in XXXX 2014. [4] He practiced the exercises and studied Zhuan Falun with the group until it was raided by agents of the Public Security Bureau (PSB) on XXXX XXXX, 2015. He escaped and went into hiding. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, he learned that agents of the PSB came to his home to locate him and left a chuanpiao (a summons or subpoena). He also learned that two practitioners were arrested. The PSB returned to his home on XXXX XXXX, 2015 and questioned his wife. A smuggler was found, and with the help of the smuggler, he left China. ROLE OF THE RAD [5] The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica1 provides guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal such as the RAD, to decisions of the first level administrative tribunal. [6] The Court stated that with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) which raised no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard. Pursuant to s. 111(2)(b) of the IRPA, the RAD may refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination if it is "of the opinion" that it cannot make a decision confirming or setting aside the RPD decision without hearing the evidence presented before the RPD. This recognizes that there may be cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over the RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law, because those cases require an assessment of credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears. It further indicates that although the RAD should sometimes exercise a degree of restraint before substituting its own determination, the issue of whether the circumstances warrant such restraint ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. [7] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its assessment of the RPD's decision on the basis of the principles outlined above. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [8] The RPD determined that the Appellant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection for the following reasons: (a) It is not credible that the Appellant is Falun Gong practitioner; (b) It is not credible that he is being pursued by the PSB in China for any reason; (c) It is not credible that he is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada; (d) It is not credible that he would be perceived as a Falun Gong practitioner upon return to China. Submissions [9] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in drawing a negative credibility inference based on the inconsistency between his testimony that he stopped working for a period of time due to health problems and the fact that he did not include this period of unemployment in the forms he submitted to initiate his claim for refugee protection. The RPD relied on this negative credibility inference to find that he had worked during the time he testified he was unemployed. The RPD further relied on this finding to conclude that he did not suffer from the pain that led him to practice Falun Gong. The RPD relied on its negative credibility finding to engage in a highly speculative analysis as to the reason the Appellant omitted to include his unemployment in his refugee intake forms. Implausibility findings should only be made in the clearest of cases and the RPD's findings cannot clearly follow from the available facts. [10] The Appellant further submits that the RPD erred in making a finding that it was implausible that he would have different medical booklets for separate medical issues. He had disclosed his medical booklet to corroborate his evidence that he had sought treatment for XXXX XXXX in 2013. In his testimony, he stated that he had been to the same hospital regarding a XXXX XXXX in 2010. He testified that this hospital visit was noted in a different booklet and that he had disclosed the booklet that was only about the treatment XXXX XXXX. He argues that this was unrelated to the central allegations and peripheral to his claim. There was no objective evidence that contradicted his evidence. [11] He further argues that the RPD erred in drawing a negative credibility inference in respect of his evidence that the PSB attended his home on several occasions because some of the visits were not been mentioned in his Basis of Claim form ("BOC"). The RPD relied on its negative credibility inference to find that no visits by the authorities had actually occurred. The RPD erred in rejecting his explanation that his friend waited several months to tell him about two of the visits. The RPD relied on speculation as to whether his family would have told him that the authorities had attended to his home at an earlier date if he were truly being sought by the authorities. It was unreasonable for the RPD to presume to know how his family would have behaved in the circumstances [12] The Appellant further argues that the RPD erred in finding that he would not be able to leave China on his own genuine passport if he was wanted by the authorities in China. The RPD ignored objective documents supporting his evidence that he had been able to exit the country with the assistance of a smuggler. [13] The Appellant further submits that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference as to the his credibility on the basis that he did not disclose any supporting documents from his friend, from his wife, and from his family members or alleged fellow practitioners in China to corroborate his story in the form of an affidavit or letter. The RPD then rejected a letter provided by his friend in support of his practice of Falun Gong in Canada and in support of the genuineness of such practice. The RPD rejected this letter in part on the basis that it was not a sworn statement. The RPD cannot reasonably ask for evidence in the form of letter and dismiss the same type of document that it concluded should have been provided as evidence. [14] The Appellant states that RPD erred in rejecting the summons (chuanpiao) as fraudulent, on the basis of its previous finding that the authorities did not visit his home. The RPD was under a duty to actually examine each of the supporting documents to establish whether they assisted in establishing his claim. ANALYSIS [15] The RAD has reviewed the evidence in this matter, including the transcript of the hearing and the decision of the RPD. The RPD has a meaningful advantage in hearing and observing the Appellant as he gave his oral evidence. The RAD acknowledges this and will review the credibility findings and the weight given to the evidence by the RPD. [16] The Appellant testified that the RPD hearing that he stopped working from XXXX 2013 to XXXX 2014 because of the impact that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was having on his ability to work. The RPD pointed out to him that there was no indication in schedule "A" that he filed with his application for refugee protection that he took any time off work from XXXX 2005 to XXXX 2015.2 He indicated that he was self-employed as a XXXX during that period of time. The RPD asked him why he indicated in schedule "A" that he worked up until XXXX 2015. He responded "No, because of the pain it's impossible that I went to work." The RPD was not satisfied with this explanation because it did not address the inconsistency. The RPD then asked why he did not indicate in his BOC narrative that he had stopped working for a year because of the pain. He stated that he was sorry "maybe at the time when the form was filled out I didn't know that it should be written in such great detail." The RPD then pointed out to him that he put a lot of detail in his narrative about his medical problem, his visits to the doctor, his medical treatments and what his wife said and felt. He responded that was correct and the RPD asked him again why he included all this detail but not that he stopped working for a year. He responded that it did not come to him at the time. The RPD found on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant worked from XXXX 2013 to XXXX 2014 and he did not suffer from debilitating pain that led him to practice Falun Gong. The RAD would only conclude from these inconsistencies that he did work during that period of time and he embellished the extent of the pain alleged. [17] The Appellant disclosed his outpatient medical record/booklet3 to corroborate his medical condition and the treatments that he tried. He testified that he went to see a doctor at the same hospital regarding a XXXX XXXX in 2010 but this was not noted in the booklet. The first entry in his medical record deals with XXXX XXXX XXXX pain and XXXX in XXXX 2013. He testified that his hospital visit in 2010 was noted in a different booklet which he did not bring. He was asked why these visits were recorded in different booklet. He explained that the booklet he disclosed is meant for his problem with XXXX XXXX and he thought it was the only book he needed. The panel did not find this explanation that he had different outpatient booklets for separate medical issues to be credible or supported by the objective evidence. [18] The RAD finds that the objective evidence states that outpatient medical records are listed in a small booklet called "Operational and Emergency Medical Record for Hospitals and Clinics" which contains a written listing of patient's symptoms by a doctor. The booklet is "distributed on a mandatory basis" and is kept by patients not the hospital. In contrast, records for hospitalized patients are kept by both the hospital and patient.4 [19] The RPD asked the Appellant whether the doctors he saw only checked XXXX XXXX or did they check other organs. He responded "no basically it's just the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX." He was asked why the medical booklet indicated that the doctor checked heart, lungs, liver, spleen and kidney when he first saw a traditional Chinese doctor on XXXX XXXX, 2013. He responded that those were regular things that normally a doctor did during the checkup. He said that he had a regular checkup done in 2013 when he visited the "resident doctor." The medical booklet indicated that this examination was done by the traditional Chinese doctor in XXXX 2013. He then stated that the checkup was done by the Western doctor earlier, between XXXX and XXXX 2013 and he showed the results to the traditional Chinese doctor. The RPD noted that there is no notation by the Western doctor in his outpatient medical record that this examination was done between XXXX and XXXX 2013. There is no entry by the Western doctor in XXXX 2013 in his medical booklet. He stated that it should be in the first entry in XXXX 2013. The RPD noted that it is not there. He repeated that he had a checkup in XXXX XXXX, 2013 with the Western doctor so it should be mentioned in the booklet. [20] The RPD also noted that although he testified that he had an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the visit on XXXX 2013 and that XXXX XXXX XXXX are done at routine checkup. He could not explain why there was no notation of an XXXX XXXX XXXX or the results of an XXXX XXXX XXXX in the medical booklet. Based on the these inconsistencies and contradictions between his testimony and the medical record he provided , the RPD found that he embellished the health problems that led him to practice of Falun Gong. Together with the documentary evidence which highlights that fraudulent documentation from China is easily obtainable,5 the RPD was not persuaded that the outpatient medical record6 was a genuine document and gave it no evidentiary weight. The RPD determined, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's allegations for joining Falun Gong because of his medical condition were not credible. [21] There is no objective evidence that directly states an individual could not have two outpatient medical booklets. However, the inconsistencies pointed out by the RPD in the medical booklet do call into question the credibility of the Appellant's claim as to the debilitating effects of the pain he alleged. [22] The Appellant testified that the PSB came to his home on XXXX XXXX, 2015, XXXX XXXX, 2015, XXXX XXXX, 2015 and XXXX XXXX, 2015 looking for him. He testified that he left China on XXXX XXXX, 2015. He signed his BOC on August 12, 2015. He wrote in his BOC narrative that the PSB came to his home on XXXX XXXX, 2015 and XXXX XXXX, 2015. He did not state in his BOC narrative that they visited on XXXX XXXX, 2015 or XXXX XXXX, 2015. He testified that although his friend told him about the first two visits he did not tell him about the third and fourth visits until the end of XXXX 2015. He was asked why his friend waited over XXXX months to tell him about the PSB's visit in XXXX 2015. He explained that his family did not want him to worry. The panel did not find it reasonable or credible that the Appellant's family would tell him about two visits and withhold information about the third visit for over XXXX months including over XXXX months after he arrived safely in Canada and made his refugee claim. The RPD stated that he fabricated the story about his friend not telling them about the PSB's third visit for several months in an attempt to explain why the third visit was not included in the narrative. The panel took a negative inference with respect to his credibility regarding the alleged visits by the PSB and determined that, on a balance of probabilities, no visits by the PSB occurred. The RAD does not agree with this conclusion but looks at the summons and the exit from China in order to determine if the Appellant was wanted by the PSB for Falun Gong activities. [23] The RAD finds that the RPD erred in rejecting the validity of the summons (chuanpiao) on the basis that no visits by the PSB occurred and that fraudulent documentation from China is easily obtainable. Jurisprudence establishes that there must be some reason or evidence to rebut the presumption that government-issued documents are valid. The reason for doubting the documents must be more than statements that fraudulent documents are generally available in the country.7 The more important a document is, the greater the obligation on the decision-maker to articulate its consideration of the document. In the absence of a considered, articulated rationale for rejecting documents, that on their face appear official, the RPD cannot dismiss as not credible that part of the Applicant's story related to the facts stated in the document.8 [24] The RAD concurs with the Appellant's submission on this issue. However, the RAD has the ability and the expertise to examine documents and reach its own conclusions. As a result, the RAD will examine the document and make a finding in relation to the documentation. [25] Documentation states, According to the Associate Director, there has been no variation in the format of the summonses and subpoenas since 2003 (ibid. 22 June 2013). In subsequent correspondence, the Associate Director stated that such forms are supposed to be used throughout the country and that "regional variations are not meant to exist"....9 [26] In reviewing the summons submitted by the Appellant10 and comparing it to the sample in the National Documentation Package (NDP) documentation,11 the RAD finds that the summons submitted is not consistent with the sample in the NDP documentation. The structure and format of the summons is not consistent with the documentation. The sample shows characters immediately below the character for chuanpiao that do not exist on the summons submitted by the Appellant. Also, the sample shows that after the seven boxes of the document there are characters that are translated as Points for Attention: The numbers that follow begin directly opposite the colon. In the document provided these numbers begin on a line underneath the characters and the colon. In addition, in the sample there are characters in parentheses at the bottom of the page under the date that do not appear on the document provided. The RAD finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the summons submitted is fraudulent, and it draws a negative inference regarding the Appellant's credibility in submitting a fraudulent document to support his case. [27] In addition, the RPD found that if the Appellant was wanted for arrest he would not have been able to enter XXXX from mainland China and then enter XXXX XXXX to fly to XXXX on his own passport if he was wanted for being involved in Falun Gong activity. The RPD set out the various requirements for a Chinese citizen to be able to enter into XXXX and XXXX XXXX. The RPD also noted that it would not have been possible for the Appellant to also have exited China if he was wanted by the Chinese authorities. The RAD agrees with these findings. [28] The RAD finds that the documentary evidence reveals that the Chinese government has a national computer network known as the Golden Shield Project,12 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. [29] 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: 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).13 [30] 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).14 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).15 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).16 [31] 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.).17 [32] 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).18 [33] The RAD finds that, in light of the Appellant's allegation that the PSB have continued to show interest in pursuing him and want to arrest him, it is reasonable to expect that the local authorities would have entered his information into the database to further their efforts to apprehend him. [34] 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 at 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. [35] The Appellant refers to documents that question whether the conclusion could be made that a smuggler would not be able to bribe an official to by-pass the computer system. The RAD notes the documents submitted by the Appellant to support his argument about the corruption of officials19 as well as the reference to documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package.20 The RAD has reviewed the documentary evidence before it and notes that the US Department of State Report21 document discusses "Corruption at the local level indicating that it was widespread." The document goes on to state that police and urban management officials being engaged in extrajudicial detention, extortion, and assault and that there were "many cases of corruption involved areas heavily regulated by the government, such as land-usage rights, real estate, and infrastructure development, which were susceptible to fraud, bribery, and kickbacks." [36] The RAD notes however, the documentary evidence provides little relevant information which applies to activities to overcome security measures in place for border controls. The RAD further notes that the same document states that while corruption remained a serious problem, there were increasing indications that the government recognized the seriousness of the problem and was taking measures to address the problem. The RAD also finds that the RPD is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality, and it may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.22 As such, the RAD agrees with the RPD that in light of the complexity of the Golden Shield infrastructure and its "completely computerized inspection procedures and integrated operations" it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would not be issued a boarding pass or would otherwise be prevented from exiting China. [37] 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.23 In this case, the RAD finds there is an evidential foundation for the RPD's findings. [38] After its own review and assessment of the evidence, the RAD agrees with the RPD's findings and does not find it credible that the Appellant was able to leave China on his own passport after coming to the attention of the PSB. In addition, the inconsistencies found in the summons submitted by the Appellant result in the RAD agreeing with the RPD and drawing a negative inference as it relates to the credibility of his allegations that he was being pursued by the PSB owing to any Falun Gong activities. [39] The Appellant was in the United States of America for XXXX days before coming to Canada and he made no claim for refugee protection. He was also in Canada for approximately XXXX days before he was caught on XXXX XXXX, 2015, by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) when he was in a friend's car that was stopped by the police for a XXXX XXXX in XXXX and he was found to be without legal status in Canada. He was detained by CBSA for XXXX days until XXXX XXXX, 2015 when a family friend posted the bond for his release. He was asked why he did not initiate his claim before he was caught by CBSA. He explained that he did not have the time to make a claim before he was caught. When he was asked why he did not claim upon his arrival in XXXX, he stated that the smuggler arranged for him to come to XXXX. However when he arrived in XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2015 he also did not make a claim. The RPD found that given that he had several opportunities to claim and that he did not do so, his failure to claim in Canada before he was caught without status in Canada by CBSA further undermined his credibility with respect to his allegations of being a genuine Falun Gong practitioner who fears the Chinese authorities. [40] The RAD finds on the totality of the evidence, it agrees with the RPD that it is not credible that the Appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner who is wanted in China for Falun Gong activities. As the result of embellishments and inconsistencies in regard to his medical condition the RAD gives little weight to his allegations that he began to practice Falun Gong, which he knew was illegal, in order to get relief from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The fraudulent summons and the exit from China on his own genuine passport are persuasive evidence that he is not wanted by the Chinese authorities for Falun Gong activity. [41] The RAD agrees with the RPD that the credibility findings can be imported into its assessment of the Appellant's sur place claim.24 Having found the Appellant's story of persecution by the PSB because of his Falun Gong activities not to be credible there is no reason to believe that he is now a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. He details activities in Canada and has provided some pictures25 and a letter26 from other individuals but they do not overcome the other findings. The letter does not contain any details as to when he joined the group, how long he had practiced with them or how often he attends. Along with the pictures, they do not attest to his motivation in joining Falun Gong activities in Canada or the genuineness of his convictions. The RPD also found that there is no persuasive evidence that he would come to the attention of Chinese authorities due to his Falun Gong activities in Canada. [42] The RAD finds that there is no serious possibility that the Appellant will be persecuted if he returns to China and on the same evidence concludes that, on a balance of probabilities, he would not be at risk to his life or at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or torture if he returned to China. DISPOSITION [43] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Ken Atkinson" Ken Atkinson May 4, 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 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 40. 3 Ibid., at pp. 664-672. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China, October 30, 2015, item at 3.2, Responses to Information Requests (RIR), CHN 05281.E, September 24, 2015. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (30 October, 2015), item 3.22, RIR, CHN104579.E, October 21, 2013. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 664-672. 7 Adesida, Amudat Olayemi v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. IMM-2891-15), Strickland, February 29, 2016, 2016 FC 256. 8 Vushaj, Marije v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. IMM-1603-15) Phelan, February 29, 2016, 2016 FC 255. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (30 October, 2015, item 9.10, RIR, CHN104458.E, October 18, 2013. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 673-674. 11 supra., footnote 10. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), items 14.3, RIR CHN104761.E., 10.4 RIR CHN104762.E. 13 Ibid., item 14.3, RIR CHN104761.E. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 10.4, RIR CHN104762.E. 18 Ibid. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 680-683. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 30, 2015), item 7.2, RIR CHN101062.E. 21 Ibid., item 2.1. 22 Numbi, Gaston Kipa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-92-12), Boivin, August 30, 2012, 2012 FC 1037, at para 19. 23 Miral, Stefnie Dinisha v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3392-97), Muldoon, February 12, 1999. 24 Jiang, Sumei v. M.C.I., (F.C., no IMM-13-12), Zinn, September 11, 2012, 2012 FC 1067. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 677-678. 26 Ibid., at pp. 675-676. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-14101