TC2-08640

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-08640 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision 06 September 2022 Date de la décision Panel Ron Stratigopoulos Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Phillip J.L. Trotter Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Vietnam. She is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated March 21, 2022, rejecting her claim for refugee protection. DECISION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The determinative issue is credibility. [3] The Appellant has not presented any new evidence; thus, I cannot convene an oral hearing. BACKGROUND [4] The Appellant alleges that in 2018 her grandfather became ill and, after a failed attempt at treatment, he was introduced to a Hoa Hao Buddhist. His condition improved after he began to worship at a Hoa Hao altar. The Appellant alleges that she became interested in the faith and became a member on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The Appellant began to practice regularly, at home alone and in a group setting as well. The Appellant alleges that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, she and other Hoa Hao Buddhists were stopped by the police from attending a Hoa Hao ceremony in XXXX XXXX. A scuffle broke out and the Appellant, feeling scared, left An Giang province the same day. The Appellant stopped attending her group gatherings. [5] The Appellant alleges that in XXXX 2019, she heard that another Hoa Hao Buddhist, who is also a fighter for religious freedom, was sentenced to eight years in jail by the communist regime in order to suppress those critical of it. Upon hearing this news, the Appellant asked her stepfather's sister to help her move to Canada. This aunt helped the Appellant apply for a job in Canada and get a work permit to come here. The Appellant came to Canada in XXXX 2020 and worked until XXXX 2020, before being released by her employer for lack of work owing to the Covid pandemic. The Appellant's aunt learned from friends that the Appellant could make a refugee claim and advised her. The Appellant made a claim for refugee protection in April 2021. ANALYSIS [6] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 [7] The RPD found that the Appellant is not a sincere follower of Hoa Hao. It also found that the Appellant provided circular and evolving testimony about the impetus for her leaving Vietnam and the associated work that her aunt secured for her in Canada. The RPD found that it was more likely than not that her departure from Vietnam was due to the repressive nature of the country and had nothing to do with Hoa Hao, and that this seriously undermined her credibility. [8] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment by disregarding evidence in support of her claim and selectively reviewing evidence. She argues that the objective evidence supports that Hoa Hao Buddhists are not free to practice their religious beliefs. She also submits that her previous plan to come to Canada is not a valid reason for the RPD to disbelieve the entirety of her claim and that it failed to consider her supporting personal and country conditions documents. [9] While I agree that the RPD reasons may have been more fulsome, it ultimately reached the correct conclusion. The Appellant is not a genuine Hoa Hao practitioner [10] The RPD found that the knowledge that the Appellant displayed was obtained from memorization and not from being a sincere follower or adherence to the belief. The Appellant submits that she provided answers that are free flowing considering her education and the usual nervousness expected at a hearing, and that she provided many concrete examples of her dedication to her faith in her testimony. I do not agree. [11] The Appellant wrote in her Basis of Claim (BOC) that she began to practice Hoa Hao in XXXX 2019. She testified that since being introduced to the faith, she practiced at home by reading the San Giang, the main book of Hoa Hao, every day.2 She testified that even after her arrival in Canada, she continued to ready daily and also to pray.3 The Appellant also testified that she attended regular group practice, twice monthly,4 where she and 12-20 other members of the group would exchange ideas about Hoa Hao. At the time of the hearing, the Appellant had been practising Hoa Hao daily for over three years. [12] When counsel asked the Appellant about the four gratitudes, she explained that you have to live a straight life, have integrity, do not do any harm, have a direction of kindness, pray and have a good heart.5 Counsel once again asked the Appellant about the four gratitudes. The Appellant replied that they were to be grateful to your mom and dad, and your teachers. Then she stated that you should be grateful to Buddha, the monks that have taught you, other teachings from the Buddha, and also your country. The objective evidence shows that Hoa Hao Buddhism has four gratitudes: "you must be grateful to your ancestors, towards your country, towards Buddhism and Buddhists, and respectful towards humanity in general."6 The Appellant is well-educated. She completed XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of XXXX for XXXX XXXX before finances forced her to stop going to school.7 She has been practicing Hoa Hao for a significant period of time and has read the main book of the faith daily for over three years, yet she could not explain the main tenets of the faith, which are limited and simple. The Appellant required prompting and triggers, as the RPD pointed out, to provide the answers she did. [13] The faith follows the teachings of the Grand Master Huynh Phu So. The objective evidence states that adherents pray two times a day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, have to be vegans four days a month, and wear a beige uniform when practicing.8 When the RPD asked the Appellant how she practiced Hoa Hao, she replied only that she read the Bible and prayed and that since she just came to Hoa Hao, she did not know much about it.9 The objective evidence indicates that adherents pray twice a day; the RPD asked the Appellant when she prayed and the Appellant replied that she did so only when it was calm and tranquil.10 I do not agree with the Appellant's submission that she displayed a theoretical knowledge of a complex faith. She was asked about the basic tenets and daily practices of the faith, yet provided answers that are not in keeping with someone who has been practicing Hoa Hao for over three years on a daily basis. I do not find it credible that the Appellant could not explain how she practiced the faith because she was just coming to it, considering that she alleges to have been practicing it daily for a significant period of time. The RPD was correct to find that the Appellant provided broad and generic responses to questions about the basic principles and her practice of Hoa Hao. I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated a knowledge of Hoa Hao that is commensurate with someone who has been practicing for as long as she alleges. I find that the Appellant is not, on a balance of probabilities, a genuine practitioner of Hoa Hao Buddhism. The Appellant's reason for leaving Vietnam undermines her credibility [14] The RPD found that the Appellant provided discrepant evidence about her work in a XXXX XXXX as it related to her planning to leave Vietnam because she could not practice Hoa Hao there, thus seriously undermining her credibility. The Appellant argues that she wanted to come to Canada long before she began to practice Hoa Hao and that the evidence suggests that she started planning to come to Canada in 2018, prior to fearing persecution. She submits that any omission from her BOC in regard to her work is not central to her claim and not a valid reason to disbelieve her claim. I do not agree. [15] The Appellant stated very clearly in her BOC that the reason that she decided to leave Vietnam was because of the eight-year sentence given to a Hoa Hao Buddhist activist on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The Appellant wrote "Because of this, I decided to ask my stepfather's sister to help me move to Canada."11 She also wrote that the aunt helped her apply for a job in Canada as a XXXX XXXX. [16] The Appellant provided confusing testimony about when she began to work in a XXXX XXXX in Vietnam. At the start of the hearing, she testified that she never worked in Vietnam and only attended school.12 She then testified that when she was preparing to come to Canada, she had to learn to do XXXX so that she could come here and work.13 Later, she testified that she began to work in a XXXX in the year 2019, before she came to Canada.14 When it was pointed out to her by counsel that in her Schedule A15 she wrote that she began to work at the XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2018, the Appellant changed her testimony and stated that she was working at the XXXX in XXXX 2018.16 Asked to explain the contradiction, the Appellant stated that she did not remember correctly. The Appellant provided even more discrepant information in her application for a work permit to come to Canada; she indicated that she had been employed as a XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2017 until XXXX 2020.17 [17] The Appellant was asked when she first planned to come to Canada, to which she replied, "I have planned to come to Canada when I got into the Hoa Hao religion."18 The Appellant alleges that she only decided to come to Canada after she became a Hoa Hao practitioner, and more specifically, after her fears were crystalized in XXXX 2019, so she engaged her aunt for help in leaving Vietnam. Yet, the Appellant had already began working in a XXXX more than a year prior to that so she could have experience as a XXXX XXXX in order to assist her with her work visa. The RPD put this contradiction to the Appellant; she provided in reply that her family was having difficulties so her aunt quickly found a job for her, so she had to learn in order to get the experience.19 Again, the Appellant has provided internally inconsistent evidence. She initially provided that she engaged her aunt to help her when she realized that she could not safely practice Hoa Hao in Vietnam; this was in XXXX 2019. She then stated that because her family was having financial difficulties, she began to work in the XXXX because her aunt had already found a job for her, and she needed the experience; this was in XXXX 2018. It is not credible that the Appellant's aunt quickly found a job for her in 2018, given that the Appellant did not even seek her help until late 2019. [18] This is central to the Appellant's claim because it was the news of the sentence in XXXX 2019 that made her decide that she had to leave Vietnam. The Appellant, however, was already preparing for her departure in XXXX 2018, well before she even alleges that she became a practitioner of Hoa Hao. [19] The Appellant argues that she started planning to come to Canada in 2018, before she feared persecution. This is not supported by the evidence. As noted above, the Appellant only planned to come to Canada after she got into the Hoa Hao religion, in 2019. I find, as did the RPD, that this seriously undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that she left Vietnam because she could not practice Hoa Hao freely and feared arrest. The Appellant's supporting documents [20] The RPD found that the letters of support provided by the Appellant did not overcome the credibility issues that arose during her testimony. The Appellant argues that the RPD did not provide sufficient reasons to disregard the supporting evidence. While I agree that the RPD reasons could have benefitted from a more fulsome explanation, after independently considering the evidence, I have come to the same conclusion. [21] A letter20 from the Appellant's mother mimics the Appellant's narrative and states that the appellant has followed Hoa Hao since her grandfather had a stroke and that she has been a better person as a result of her faith. The Appellant's mother states that her daughter would not be safe practicing Hoa Hao in Vietnam. The letter cannot attest to the sincerity of the Appellant's faith. I find that the letter cannot overcome my concerns with respect to genuineness of the Appellant's faith nor the credibility concerns about her impetus to leave Vietnam. I assign the letter little weight. [22] A letter from a friend of the Appellant, who is studying in Canada, was also presented.21 The letter states that the Appellant is a Hoa Hao Buddhist and as a result is open and sociable. The author states that the Appellant wanted her to follow Hoa Hao, but she is a Christian and refused. The author believes that the Hoa Hao are persecuted in Vietnam, and it would not be safe for the Appellant to live there. Similar to the letter from the Appellant's mother, this letter does not overcome my concerns about the genuineness of the Appellant's faith or the concerns about her departure from Vietnam and is also assigned little weight. [23] A letter22 from the woman who introduced the Appellant to Hoa Hao informs of her background with Hoa Hao. The author states that she explained the doctrines of Hoa Hao to the Appellant and provided her with the Sam Giang. She also reiterates the events of XXXX XXXX, 2019, when the police stopped the celebration in XXXX XXXX. While the letter confirms that the Appellant tried to attend a Hoa Hao celebration in XXXX 2019, it does not address concerns about the genuineness of the Appellant's faith. I assign this letter little weight. [24] A letter23 from the Appellant's grandfather states that the Appellant is a Hoa Hao Buddhist. The majority of the letter speaks about his health issues and his recovery after getting treatment from a Hoa Hao Buddhist. The letter also states that the Appellant will not be able to practice her faith freely in Vietnam. The letter suffers from the same concerns as the others and is also afforded little weight. [25] The Appellant's aunt provided two letters.24 The first advises that she helped the Appellant come to Canada so that the Appellant could follow the religion she loves, Hoa Hao. The aunt states that she found a job for the Appellant and also informed her of the refugee program. This letter is assigned little weight in establishing the Appellant's allegations. [26] The second letter informs how the aunt came to Canada under the humanitarian program in 1993. It outlines the discrimination her family faced in Vietnam as perceived enemies of the state and the XXXX XXXX she spent in a XXXX XXXX in Malaysia. The aunt states that she does not recommend that the Appellant travel to Malaysia as the program has been closed. The second letter is not probative with respect to the Appellant's allegations and is assigned no weight. [27] The Appellant submits that the objective evidence shows that Hoa Hao Buddhists are not free to congregate or practice their religious beliefs and are often mistreated at the hands of the state. While I accept that the Appellant tried to attend a Hoa Hao ceremony in XXXX 2019 in Vietnam and was turned away by the police, I have determined that the appellant is not a genuine Hoa Hao adherent, and it is not necessary to address these submissions. [28] Overall, I find that the Appellant has not credibly established her allegations. She is not a genuine Hoa Hao adherent and fabricated the reasons why she had to leave Vietnam quickly in fall of 2019. I find that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted if she returned to Vietnam, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).25 I also find on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Vietnam, pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA. CONCLUSION [29] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Ron Stratigopoulos Ron Stratigopoulos 06 September 2022 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 14, line 13. 3 Ibid., page 15, lines 44-45. 4 Ibid., page 8, lines 36-37. 5 Ibid., page 21, lines 45-49, page 22, lines 1-5. 6 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Vietnam, July 29, 2022, item 1.5, Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam, United Kingdom. Home Office, September 9, 2019, page 107. 7 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 6, lines 34-49, page 7, lines 1-8. 8 NDP for Vietnam, July 29, 2022, item 1.5, page 108. 9 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 14, lines 33-34. 10 Ibid., page 16, line 13. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, page 21, paragraph 14 12 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 6, line 28. 13 Ibid., page 7, lines 28-29. 14 Ibid., page 26, line 11. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, page 26. 16 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 26, lines 18-25. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, page 68. 18 RPD Hearing Transcript, page 27, line 48. 19 Ibid., page 31, lines 32-33. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, page 80. 21 Ibid., page 84 22 Ibid., pages 88-89. 23 Ibid., pages 92-93. 24 Ibid., page 96 and Exhibit 6, page 129. 25 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-08640 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 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.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français