TB5-03785

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 : TB5-03785 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision June 22, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Robert S. Garner 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) is a citizen of China. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant has not submitted new evidence in support of his appeal. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and find him to be a Convention refugee, or in the alternative, grant an oral hearing, or refer his claim back to the RPD for redetermination. [2] In that no new evidence was presented, the RAD will not be holding an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [3] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. Memorandum of Appeal [4] The Appellant submits that the Board erred by: a) unreasonably drawing a negative inference regarding the Appellant's credibility due to the fact that the Appellant had previously submitted an application for temporary resident visa, and an application for permanent residence with the spousal sponsor. b) failing to provide any authority for its conclusion that the Article of the Criminal Procedure Law quoted in the XXXX XXXX XXXX (summons) was incorrect. c) reasonably concluding that the Appellant would not be able to hide at an extended relative's house because the PSB would necessarily monitor his phone given that the PSB have such capabilities. d) failing to properly consider and assess the evidence and case law in finding that the Appellant would not be able to leave China on his own passport with the assistance of a smuggler. e) misconstruing the documentary evidence in finding that the Appellant's family members have not experienced any problems with the PSB as a result of his practice of Falun Gong in China. f) drawing an adverse inference from the fact that the Appellant has not joined the Falun Dafa Association of Canada. g) failing to provide any detail whatsoever in its reasons for finding the Appellant lacked knowledge of Falun Gong. h) failing to properly assess the sur place aspect of the claim. Background [5] The Appellant was employed as a XXXX in his work unit. After being injured in a traffic accident, his work was affected, and he was fired. Because of his illness, he could not find employment, and as a result lost confidence and was disheartened. In the XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2013, a friend shared his experiences about his practice of Falun Gong. The Appellant practiced the exercises regularly for two months and the pain from his illness lessened. On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the Appellant began practicing with the Falun Gong group. On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the Appellant was unable to make it for his Falun Gong practice group because his granddaughter was ill. He learned that the group had been raided by the police around 8:30 PM and as a result he went into hiding at his cousin's home. On XXXX XXXX, the Public Security Bureau (PSB) officers went to his home, searched it, asked about his Falun Gong practice, and took away his notes concerning Falun Gong. The PSB left a summons for the Appellant with the family. [6] The Appellant learned that the PSB officers went to his home several times and that three of his fellow practitioners were arrested. Realizing that he was in danger if he stayed in China, he fled China on XXXX XXXX, 2014 with the assistance of a smuggler. When he arrived in Toronto, he was forced to work at XXXX XXXX and released after he had paid off his debt. [7] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on December 2, 2014 and January 15, 2015. In a decision of February 27, 2015, the RPD rejected his claim finding that there was not a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted in China, or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in China [8] In the Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant respectfully requests that the RAD set aside the decision and find that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination, or be granted an oral hearing before the RAD. ROLE OF THE RAD [9] The Appellant made no submissions on the standard of review. [10] The RAD finds that the Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,1 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by a specialized tribunal, such as the RAD, to decisions of a first-level administrative tribunal. Justice Phelan states in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the foregoing decision: [54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. [55] In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error." [11] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Deference will be afforded to the credibility findings of the RPD or to other findings where the RPD has a particular advantage in reaching its conclusions. Merits of the Appeal Applications for Temporary and Permanent residence in Canada [12] The RPD drew a significant negative inference regarding the Appellant's general credibility because of credibility issues arising from the Appellant's application to come to Canada on two previous occasions. The RPD questioned the Appellant at length using the documentation provided by the Minister on his Notice to Intervene.2 The Minister's notes indicated that the Appellant had been not credible regarding several issues when dealing with Canadian Immigration and Citizenship (CIC) officials. The credibility issues outlined had to do with misrepresenting information on his application, including his marital status. The RPD gave the Appellant a chance to explain the circumstances surrounding this application, and he said that he did not know that he was submitting false information. The RPD found the claimant's explanation to be both disingenuous and lacking in credibility, given that the appellant would have sworn that the information provided was complete, true and correct. [13] When the Appellant applied for permanent residents with the spousal sponsor in approximately XXXX 2006, the application was denied due to credibility concerns regarding the genuineness of the marriage. When questioned by the RPD, the Appellant was unable to provide any detail regarding an alleged appeal of the spousal sponsorship application. The Appellant stated that he had not lived with his alleged spouse, XXXX XXXX, since 2007, and that he was not aware that she was in Canada. In further testimony, the Appellant stated that he began living with his spouse again around XXXX XXXX, 2014. The RPD noted that on the Five Country Conference (FCC), received post hearing that the Appellant's application for a US visitor visa, XXXX 2014, states that he has a spouse named XXXX XXXX. The appellant's counsel was given a chance to respond to this new information by providing written submissions. No explanation was offered for this further contradiction in the information provided regarding the Appellant's spouse and marital status. [14] The Appellant submits that the Board erred in drawing a significant negative inference regarding the Appellant's general credibility based on the submitted applications for a temporary resident visa, and a submitted application for permanent residence with a spousal sponsor. The Appellant submits that because he was untruthful in these situations, the credibility issues do not transfer to the current circumstance. He submitted that because there was one untruth, it does not result in a blanket untruth and therefore the board erred by drawing a negative inference. The Appellant also submitted that an assessment of the specific evidence regarding the refugee claim was needed before credibility findings could be made. [15] In reviewing the documentation submitted, and in listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD finds that the claimant has not been truthful or credible with the authorities in Canada, or in his visa application with the USA. The RAD does not agree with the RPD's finding of a significant negative inference regarding the Appellant's general credibility. The RAD also does not agree with the Appellant's statement of one untruth, in that there were many issues that were found not credible in the appellant's applications and dealings with Canadian authorities. The Appellant's lack of credibility in dealing with Canadian and US authorities is not the main determinative issue in this claim. However, it does indicate that the Appellant is willing to tell untruths in order to achieve his goals, and the RAD finds that the Appellant has not been credible in his dealing with Canadian authorities. XXXX XXXX XXXX(Coercive Summons) [16] The RPD found that the Article cited on the Course of Summons was incorrect, and as a result placed little weight on the summons. The RPD cited the regulation number 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and quoted the appropriate IRB documentation. The RPD found that the article quoted did not address the reason for the alleged PSB officers coming to the Appellant's home, i.e. the practice of Falun Gong. The RPD also found that it was more likely than not that the coercive summons was fraudulently produced by someone who was not familiar with the laws of China. Because of the above finding, the RPD found that the Appellant, by producing such documents, had undermined the credibility of this evidence and allegations. [17] The Appellant submits that the RPD does not cite any documentary evidence, specialized knowledge, or other authority to explain why it finds that the PSB incorrectly cited the relevant Article of the Criminal Procedure Law on the coercive summons or what the correct article would be. Quoting IRB documentation CHN 103401.E, the Appellant submits that police compliance with the law is an issue and therefore it varies. The appellant submits that the RPD having failed to rely on any documentary evidence or other authority in arriving in its finding has made an erroneous finding of fact that cannot be supported by the evidence. [18] The Appellant further submits that the summons was valid and the Board had no reasoning for determining otherwise. Quoting case law, the appellant submits that the RPD was in error in stating that because fraudulent documents are easily obtainable in China, the summons was fraudulent [19] Given the information cited below, the RAD finds that the Coercive Summons issued is fraudulent and has no probative value in supporting the Appellant's allegations of being wanted by the PSB for the practice of Falun Gong. [20] The RPD erred in quoting Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The article quoted comes from the procedural law document adopted at the Fourth Session of the Eighth National People's Congress on March 17, 1996. This document was subsequently replaced by the fifth session of the 11th National People's Congress on March 14, 2012. In examining IRB documentation CHN 104458.E, China: Samples of summonses and subpoenas, the ID finds that the correct article on a Coercive Summons is Article 50. However, in examining the same documentation quoted above, the RAD finds that the format of the summons given in documentation does not match the sample in the IRB documentation. The documentation given appears to be the middle section of the three sectioned document. The IRB documentation of the Coercive Summons has only two sides. NDP documentation CHN 103401.E states the following, ([c]oercive summonses (juchuan) are served by the People's courts, people's procuracies, public security or state security organs to those who do not comply with criminal summonses. This documentation states that the Appellant, if the Coercive Summons were genuine, should have received a Criminal Summons prior to the Coercive Summons. No such documentation or testimony was adduced at the RPD hearing. As stated above, the summons given in documentation is clearly fraudulent. [21] In response to the Appellants comment regarding the lack of consistency in the law in China, the RAD notes the following. IRB documentation CHN 104188.E states that there are no jurisdictional differences in format and appearance of summonses and subpoenas, with the exception of Hong Kong and Macau. According to IRB documentation CHN 103401.E, "the issuance of the public security summonses is governed by (the Security Administration Punishment Law), and by "the Ministry of Public Security Regulations on the handling of administrative cases." Both of the above are Chinese government organizations. The rule of law quoted by the Appellant refers to the issuance and procedures of issuing summonses and subpoenas. [22] The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was never wanted by the PSB for the practice of Falun Gong in China. The RAD also finds that the submission of a fraudulent document seriously undermines the credibility of the Appellant. On a balance of probabilities, the Appellant was not a practicing Falun Gong practitioner in China. The Claimant in Hiding [23] The RPD, quoting a number of IRB documents, found it unlikely, given the advanced surveillance and monitoring of all forms of communication conducted by the Chinese government that the Appellant would have been able to communicate with his friends and family by telephone or leave his place of hiding to attend the US Embassy in Beijing and avoid discovery by the PSB if he had been wanted by the authorities in China. As a result of this finding, the RPD found it more likely than not that the Appellant was not and is not wanted by the PSB in China. [24] The appellant submits that the Board erred by finding that the Appellant is not wanted by the PSB in China. The Appellant submitted that his profile with such that the Chinese authorities would not be extending resources to monitor him for 24 hours a day. The Appellant also submitted that the cousin was not immediate family, and therefore would not be suspected of harboring an alleged Falun Gong fugitive. [25] The RAD, while appreciative of the documentation quoted by the RPD on the issue of China's technology, does not find that the conclusion drawn is valid. With respect, the Chinese authorities have the capability, as described in the documentation, of tracking and finding people who are they wish to question or incarcerate. However, it is speculative to assume that the Appellant would have been high on their list of wanted persons, given his alleged profile as a Falun Gong practitioner. However, the RAD does not find this issue to be a determinative issue in the claim. This issue is also not determinative in finding that the Appellant was wanted by the PSB in China. The RAD will not overturn the decision based on this RPD determination, given other credibility issues, on this topic, discussed above. Exit from China [26] The RPD found that the Appellant's evidence, with respect to the allegation that he is wanted by the PSB for his alleged Falun Gong related activities is not credible or reliable. To support this finding, the RPD referred to IRB documentation CHN 104761.E, quoting many of the issues that indicated that people wanted by the PSB would be unable to leave the country, given the electronic scanning of documentation. [27] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to consider what the smuggler would have been able to do to successfully affect his departure. To support this submission, the Appellant cited some case law.3. The Appellant refers to Zhang v. Canada (MCI) 2008 FC 533 ("Zhang") to support to his argument. In that case, the reviewing court took exception to the RPD's findings when it concluded that possible hundreds of officials had to be bribed to facilitate undetected departure from China. [28] The Appellant argues that the Appellant used the services of a smuggler to leave China and that it is reasonable to assume that the smuggler used by the Appellant had the means of avoiding detection by airport officials. [29] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that these cases are similar. The RAD notes that in the Zhang matter, the claimant provided testimony that officials were bribed. There is no such evidence in the case at hand. The Appellant merely testified that his exit was facilitated by the smugger. Furthermore, in the case at hand, the RPD did not engage in the speculation hundreds of officials would have to be bribed. [30] More importantly, the decision in Zhang was based on the documentary evidence that existed in 2008 and made no reference to the Golden Shield Project which was relied upon by the RPD in this case. In the Zhang matter, the reviewing court made reference to a 2001 Response to Information Report which addressed security and exit control procedures at Chinese airports. The documentary evidence before the RPD on issues of security and exit control is contained in Request for Information CHN104761.E dated March 2014. [31] With reference to Sun v. Canada, IRB documentation CHN104762.E states that the issue of sharing information among security forces in China has improved dramatically. The RAD prefers the more current documentation and that used in the case law noted above. [32] It is clear security practices have become increasingly stringent in recent years in China and that there a number of systems now in place to identity persons leaving the country. The RPD's findings with regard to the Appellant's departure from China are sound under the circumstances. The RPD is entitled to make findings based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality, and may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.4 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.5 In this case, there is an evidential foundation for the RPD's findings. The RAD finds that the RPD's credibility finding on this issue was sound. Treatment of Family Members [33] Because the Appellant's family had not suffered any consequences described in the IRB documentation6, the RPD found that the Appellant was not and is not wanted by the PSB in China. The RPD accepted that not every family member of every Falun Gong practitioner would suffer abuse and harassment by authorities in China. [34] The Appellant, using the same documentation as quoted above, states that in addition to the RPD's assessment that not every Falun Gong practitioner is harassed or suffers abuse, also submits that the consequences range from loss of employment to torture. The appellant also questions the author of the documentation used by the IRB. The Appellant also submits that in spite of several visits by the PSB, he never led or organized the Falun Gong group, and therefore the Appellant falls into the broad range that the documentary evidence speaks to. [35] The RAD relies on documentation provided in the NDP package to be vetted and provide accurate and timely information. The RAD concurs with the RPD's findings. The IRB documentation, as indicated above by both the RPD and the Appellant, states that not every Falun Gong practitioner's family would suffer the consequences described. However, the Appellant submitted a Coercive Summons, found by the RAD to be fraudulent. If the summons had been genuine, it would indicate that the PSB had more than a passing interest in the Appellant, and would reasonably have inflicted, upon the family, some of the measures described in the previous documentation, upon the family. The RPD finding is sound. Issuance of a US Visitors Visa [36] The RPD found that it was more likely than not that the Appellant was not considered a person of interest to the PSB in China, because of the security check done by the USA Consulate.7 This finding is substantiated by the biometric report issued by the US Consulate.8 This finding by the RPD was not challenged by the Appellant Falun Dafa Association [37] The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that because the Appellant did not acquire a letter of support or have a witness from the Falan Dafa Association (FDA) at his hearing, he is not a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong. The RPD quoting item 12.30 from the NDP package outlined the role of the association in supporting Falun gong practitioners. The Appellant testified that he had met a member of the FDA but did not know that he could have asked her to be a witness. The Appellant also stated that he did not know that he could have asked for a letter of support from the FDA. [38] The appellant submits that the RPD's reasoning in this matter is flawed. He states that, as a Falun Gong practitioner, it is not a requirement to be a member of the FDA. The appellant submits that the RPD's conclusion regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's Falun Gong practice is therefore flawed. [39] The RAD agrees with the Appellants reasoning on this issue. The RAD finds that it is not a requirement to belong to the FDA in order to be considered a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. However, this issue is not a determinative issue in deciding this claim. The Appellants' genuineness as a Falun gong practitioner will be addressed below in this decision. Knowledge of Falun gong Genuineness of Falun Gong Practice in Canada [40] The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was not a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong. The RPD stated that the Appellant was able to articulate little of the principles and practices of Falun Gong, other than to reiterate the principles of "truth, compassion, and forbearance". This limited knowledge plus the RPD's concerns around the credibility of the claimant's allegations the material components of his testimony cause the panel to make this finding. [41] The appellant submits that the RPD does not explain what, "little of the principles and practices of Falun Gong" means, and therefore it has failed to explain why any specific limitation would be crucial to the practice of Falun Gong such that the Appellant's lack of knowledge results in him not being a Falun Gong practitioner. The Appellant contends that his knowledge of the main principles of "truth, compassion, and forbearance, are relevant. The appellant quoted case law 9with regards to not being overly stringent and microscopic in examination of an Appellant's knowledge of Falun Gong. [42] The RAD finds that the Appellant is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. In listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD makes the following observations and comments. When asked his understanding of Falun Gong, the appellant said that he does the five exercises. He testified that doing the five exercises "have recovery effect to health." The appellant did not answer the question asked by the RPD. The RAD draws a negative inference. It would be reasonable that the Appellant would have a clear understanding of the practice of Falun Gong. He allegedly began this illegal practice in China to deal with his distress. To engage in such an activity without a clear understanding of its purpose and practice, is not credible [43] When asked how Falun Gong improved his health, the Appellant said through practice it has an effect. The appellant in response to these two questions never mentioned the philosophical basis of the practice of Falun Gong as described by Master Li. [44] When the RPD asked more specifically, "What is Falun Gong?",the Appellant said that when studying, his understanding of Falun gong is three words truthfulness benevolence and forbearance. Master Li, in Zhuan Falun, outlines in nine talks a very comprehensive understanding of the philosophical base that one must acquire in order to be considered a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. The statement of three underlying principles of Falun gong does not make one a genuine Falun gong practitioner. [45] One of the basic principles of Falun Gong is cultivation, and master Li describes in detail, in talk three, how doing exercises without appropriate cultivation does not increase your gong. In in talk one of Zhuan Fulun, master Li states that to be considered a genuine Falun Gong practitioner one must do both the exercises and study the philosophical basis in order to cultivate one's character. The RAD draws a negative inference because of the Appellant's lack of understanding of the basis for practice of Falun Gong. The Appellant has 12 years of formal education in China, and was gainfully employed. It is not credible that the Appellant, who allegedly began the practice of Falun Gong in XXXX 2013, some XXXX months prior to his first hearing in December 2014 would have such limited knowledge. The appellant testified at the hearing that they did not have the Falun Dafa book when he was in China. However, the claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014, some XXXX months prior to his first hearing. If the Appellant was a true Falun Gong practitioner, it would be reasonable that he would have studied the major text, Zhuan Falun, during this time and would have a basic understanding of the principles and practices of Falun Gong. [46] In continuing testimony, the RPD asked the claimant what Master Li said about the cause of ill health. The claimant did not answer the question but testified that Falun Gong does not cure illness but has a positive effect. When the question was repeated by the RPD, the Appellant said that he did not remember because of a poor memory. For the Appellant not to have an understanding of this issue, especially when it was the primary reason, according to documentation and testimony, that he joined a Falun Gong, is not credible. [47] When asked about the difference between Falun Gong and other Qigong schools, the Appellant said a physical reaction, and then but it has something different. He further responded that he did not have an in-depth understanding because back in China he did not have a copy. When asked by the RPD a copy of what?, the Appellant responded Falun Dafa. The principal philosophical basis of master Li's philosophy is in his book, Zhuan Falun. If the Appellant was a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, it would be reasonable that he would have knowledge of this primary book. [48] When the appellant was asked if he had studied Falun Dafa since coming to Canada, he responded he mainly focused on the exercises for health. He further testified that he has not had an in-depth study of the theory. Both of the statements indicate that the Appellant has not followed master Li's teachings, and would not be considered a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. [49] The Appellant correctly named exercise three, the Heavenly Circuit. When asked what he understood about the third exercise, the claimant responded that you can't take one exercise out. He further testified that you cannot take out or isolate one exercise. The RAD draws a negative inference from the Appellant's inability to describe the basis of one of the exercises that he has been performing for some 18 months since he allegedly began the practice of Falun Gong in China. [50] At the second sitting, when responding to his counsel's questions, the Appellant described how the practice of Falun Gong had improved his health and changed him into being a better person. He reiterated the three principles of truth compassion and forbearance, and said he was guided every day by the principle of enduring and doing the right things. He described how he practiced twice a day, and went once a week sometimes for practice at the Chinese Cultural Center or Queens Park. When asked about attending Falun Gong activities, the Appellant said he attended a parade but could not give a description. In further testimony he reiterated his practice at the Chinese cultural center and sometimes a Queens Park. The Appellant further stated that he be continue to practiceFalun Gong especially the five exercises, and that he would follow master these principles as a guide for his life. The RAD finds that the Appellant's ability to make these statements to Counsel's questions at the second sitting, does not outweighs the Appellant's inability to describe Falun Gong and respond accurately to the RPD's questions about Falun gong during the first hearing. [51] The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was not a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong in China, and is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada. Sur place [52] In its decision, the RPD made no finding regarding the issue of sur place. [53] After the RPD hearing, the Appellant's counsel made a submission on the sur place aspect of the claim, and submitted that the panel had sufficient evidence before it to find that the Appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution and that he faces a serious possibility of persecution should he return to China, quoting Ding, Lijie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3708-13, Mactavish, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 820. [54] The Appellant submits that the board erred in not properly assessing the sur place aspects of the claim. The appellant also submits that the RPD did not take into consideration a letter provided by a fellow practitioner attesting to his Falun Gong practicing Canada. The appellant submits that the board did not make a finding regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's Falun Gong practice either in China or Canada, and that such a finding could cause the RPD to have found that the Appellant would be unable to practice Falun Gong in China because of potential persecution. The appellant submits that he provided sufficient evidence to establish himself as a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada, and as a result would be unable to return to China [55] The RAD is cognizant that the Board is entitled to take its negative credibility findings into account when assessing the sur place claim of Falun Gong practice as per Ding10 and Jiang11. As outlined above, the Appellant's allegations of genuine Falun Gong practice in China, and his being wanted by the PSB for his practice were found not to be credible. The RAD is also cognizant that it is reasonable to take into account the fact that the Appellant fabricated the allegations when assessing the genuineness of the Appellants' practice and to consider the Appellants' motive for practicing Falun Gong as per Su.12 [56] The RAD considered the totality of the evidence on the record regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's Falun Gong practice. The RAD notes that knowledge in itself cannot establish the genuineness of someone's faith. The RAD considered the Appellant's motive for his practice in Canada based on an analysis of the full context of what the Appellant has done since coming to Canada. The RAD finds that the particular situation of the Appellant is distinguishable from those in Chen13 as the Appellant did not have a "long and persistent practice in Canada". [57] The RAD found that the Appellant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada, outlining the deficiencies in his knowledge and commitment to the philosophical basis of Falun Gong. The RAD gives no probative value to the letter supporting the genuineness of the principal Appellant's practice of Falun Gong. The letter was handwritten, not a sworn declaration, and gives no information about the level of knowledge and experience with Falun Gong that the writer of the letter possesses. [58] The RAD is guided in its analysis by a decision of Madam Justice Gleason14 in assessing its forward-looking decision. Madam Justice Gleason concludes that a claimant must satisfy the RPD that he or she will continue to practice his or her faith in China. "Proof of joining a church and knowledge of its precepts, however, does not equate to proof that the individual would be at risk if returned to his or her country of origin. In the context of a country such as China, where persecution is practiced against Christians not for apostasy but for the practice of their religion, the claimant must satisfy the RPD that he or she will continue to practice his or her faith in China." [59] Based on the totality of the evidence, and considering that the allegations of genuine Falun Gong practice in China were found not to be credible; and given the concerns with the testimony provided in support of his practice, the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish a genuine Falun Gong practice in Canada and that he would practice Falun Gong in China. Disposition [60] . Having considered all of the evidence, the RAD determines that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted if she were to return to China today or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. CONCLUSION [61] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Robert S. Garner" Robert S. Garner June 22, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 2 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, Notice of Intent to Intervene, pp. 132-161. 3 Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 387 ; Zhang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2008 FC 533. 4 Numbi, Gaston Kipa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-92-12), Boivin, August 30, 2012; 2012 FC 1037, at 19. 5 Miral, Stefnie Dinisha v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3392-97), Muldoon, February 12, 1999. 6 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (31 October 2014), Item 12.27. 7 RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 31, 2014), item 14.9 procedures for visitors visa at the United States assembly in Beijing9, Issuance procedures for visitors visa at the United States assembly in Beijing 8 RPD's Record, Exhibit 11, pp.633-647. 9 Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 288, at para 61. 11 Jiang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1067 at para 27, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1149. 12Su, Hao Wen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Gleason, Imm-7356-12, May 17, 2013, 2013 FC 518. 13Chen, Hongzhen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Russell, IMM-1956-13, July 28, 2014, 2014 FC 749. 14Li, Shi Jie v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (IMM-8521-11), Gleason, August 15, 2012, 2012 FC 998. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-03785