TB5-07396

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 : TB5-07396 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 October 2, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Robert S. Garner Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Jacqueline 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, (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 the appellant to be a Convention refugee. In the alternative, the appellant respectfully requests that he be granted an oral hearing before the RAD. In the alternative, the appellant respectfully requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] 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 a) Did the Board err by drawing a negative inference on the appellant's credibility because he did not know the name of the relative he was staying with while in hiding without considering the appellant's explanation b) Did the Board err by finding it unreasonable that each person in appellant's Falun Gong group had their own book of Zhuan Falun considering it is illegal to purchase a copy of it c) Did the Board err by finding it not plausible that the appellant's mother who is running from the police would return home to retrieve Falun Gong materials before going into hiding d) Did the Board err by drawing a negative inference on the appellant's credibility because he said his summons is now missing and therefore did not have a copy of it at his hearing e) Did the Board err by giving little weight to a photocopy of a Jail Visiting Card and a letter from the appellant's school indicating that he was expelled because fraudulent documents are readily available in China f) Did the Board fail 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 g) Did the Board draw a negative inference on appellant's credibility of his failure to make a refugee claim at the first opportunity afforded to him once he left China h) Did the Board fail to properly assess the identity of the appellant as a Falun Gong practitioner i) Did the Board fail to properly assess the sur place aspect of the claim.1 BACKGROUND [3] The appellant's mother began the practice of Falun Gong, in January 2012, because of serious headaches. The appellant's father left in June 2012 because of his mother's practice of Falun Gong. On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the appellant's mother's group was discovered by the police. [4] As a result of an experience during a mountain climbing trip, the appellant began having nightmares, and in the June 2012 started to have serious headaches. Because the medication did not help this problem, the appellant's mother began to teach him Falun Gong in mid-August 2012. The appellant began to practice this with his mother's friends in their home starting in mid-September 2012. The appellant's health improved and he was able to participate fully in school activities, including a winter camp in the USA to learn English, in late January 2013. [5] After the XXXX XXXX, 2013 raid on his mother's Falun Gong practice group, he was advised by his grandmother to go into hiding. The Public Security Bureau (PSB) visited the appellant's home, searched it, and interrogated his grandmother. As the PSB continue to look for the appellant and his mother, they issued a summons on XXXX XXXX, 2013. As a result, a smuggler was contacted, and arrangements were made for the appellant to leave China safely on March 2, 2013. [6] After arriving in the USA, the appellant entered Canada on March 4, 2013 through a park between Seattle and Vancouver, Canada. After his arrival in Toronto, the smuggler took the appellant's Chinese passport and Chinese Resident Identity Card (RIC) because there was money outstanding. On XXXX XXXX, 2013, the appellant was suspended from school. [7] The appellant's grandmother attempted to bribe PSB officials to have the appellant's mother released, but this was unsuccessful. After raising money to pay the smuggler for the appellant's trip to Canada, the smuggler returned the appellant's RIC and passport in February 2015. The appellant lives with his grandmother's friend, and recently learned that the PSB continue to make inquiries about him, and his mother remains imprisoned. [8] The appellant's Refugee hearing was held on June 2, 2015, and in a decision on June 16, 2015, the claim was denied. The RPD submitted, after considering all of the evidence, including counsel's submissions, that the appellant is not a Convention refugee and does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground in China. The RPD also found that the appellant is not a person in need of protection in that his removal to China would not, on a balance of probabilities, subject him personally to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and in that there are no substantial grounds to believe that his removal to China will subject him personally to a danger of torture. 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,2 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 Credibility Practice of Falun Gong Copy of the Zhuan Falun [12] The RPD found it unreasonable that each individual in her mother's home practice group would have a copy of Zhuan Falun considering it was illegal to purchase and have a copy of this book. [13] The appellant submits that the RPD finding on how each person would have their own book, considering that it is illegal to purchase a copy of Zhuan Falun, was incomplete. By not asking the question of how they acquired their copy of Zhuan Falun, the appellant submits that the RPD's finding is speculative. No submission was made on the impact of this alleged speculative finding with regards to the overall claim. [14] The RAD agrees with the appellant, in that, in spite of its illegality, it is possible that copies of the Zhuan Falun could be acquired. The RAD also finds that whether or not the Falun Gong practitioners had their own copy of Zhuan Falun is not a determinative issue in this claim. One of the determinative issues is the appellant's alleged practice of Falun Gong. Mother's Falun Gong materials [15] The RPD found that when his mother's Falun Gong practice site was raided, she returned home and took all of the Falun Gong materials, including their books, before going into hiding. The RPD found this not plausible, and stated that this raised credibility concerns regarding the appellant's allegations. [16] The appellant submits that the RPD's finding in this area was speculative. The RPD had no knowledge of the alleged PSB raid on the mother's Falun Gong practice group. The appellant also submits that the mother's actions did not fall outside the realm of what could be reasonably expected. What might appear to be strange, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board), could have a very valid explanation which would not be considered implausible. The appellant speculated that the appellant's mother was doing what any mother would do and try to protect her son because she knew the PSB were looking for them. [17] Given that there was no questioning of the appellant regarding the alleged raid by the PSB of his mother's Falun Gong practice group, the RPD's findings are speculative. The RAD finds that it is possible, that after the raid by the PSB, his mother could have behaved in a way that he alleges. The RAD notes the appellant's reference to Valtchev3 and concurs with the appellant's submission. Both scenarios described by the RPD and the appellant are possible, but with no evidence having been accrued, the RPD's finding is speculative. However, the RAD finds that this is not a determinative issue in this claim. Whether the appellant's mother returned to her home to take the Falun Gong materials away is irrelevant to the basis of the claim, the appellant's practice of Falun Gong and fear of persecution should he return to China. Genuineness of the appellant's practice of Falun Gong [18] The RPD questioned the appellant concerning his reading of the book Zhuan Falun. When the appellant stated that he fully read the book once or twice a month, and found it not necessary to read this book, only to do the exercises, the RPD drew a negative inference as to the appellant's Falun Gong identity as a genuine practitioner. The RPD stated that this was against the philosophies of Master Li, and stated that Falun Gong exercises are no more beneficial than practicing Qi Gong exercises, and (doing the exercises) does not designate that individual as a Falun Gong practitioner. The RPD stated that the appellant had a basic knowledge of Falun Gong, regarding the practice, and found that the appellant memorized basic facts of Falun Gong principles for the purpose of enhancing his refugee claim in Canada. [19] The appellant believes that you do not have to read Zhuan Falun to be a Falun Gong practitioner. He submits that the conclusion that the RPD made was not sound, and that given the RPD's reasoning, practitioners in China could not be considered legitimate practitioners because they would not be able to purchase the book. [20] The appellant submits that his belief that you do not have to read the book Zhuan Falun to be a genuine practitioner does not therefore lead to the conclusion that he is not a genuine practitioner. He further submits that whether he reads the book or not is irrelevant to his testimony in that he testified that he reads the book once or twice a month. [21] The RAD concurs with the RPD's findings that the appellant is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner because of his lack of commitment to reading Master Li's book Zhuan Falun. Master Li states in his book Zhuan Falun, practitioners must study, read, and memorize Zhuan Falun to guide your cultivation. He further states, that those who only do the exercises but do not study the Fa, are not disciples of Dafa whatsoever.4 The RAD finds that the appellant does not have a basic understanding of the teachings or principles of Falun Gong, as outlined by Master Li. In listening to the recording of the hearing, the appellant says that his mother and fellow practitioners read Zhuan Falun, but that he didn't read much. The appellant, according to his testimony, had a copy of Zhuan Falun. In testimony, he stated that he rarely reads the book, and just does the exercises. His testimony that he only reads the Zhuan Falun once or twice a month, and that you do not have to read the book but only do the exercises, clearly indicates that he is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, according to master Li Hongzi. The appellant also testified that he had never read Zhuan Falun cover to cover, in spite of allegedly practicing Falun Gong in China since mid-August 2012, and allegedly having a copy of Zhuan Falun. [22] The RAD considered the case law referenced by the appellant and finds it not on point.5 The Federal Justice comments on the applicant's flawed practice, and indicates that his "knowledge was fairly extensive, and his understanding of the philosophy of Falun Gong, while perhaps not profound, was considerable." As stated above, in this case, the appellant's understanding of the basic philosophy of Falun Gong is seriously flawed. The appellant does not understand that the practice of Falun Gong requires study of Master Li's writings in order to be considered a genuine practitioner. In addition, Master Li, in chapter one of Zhuan Falun, specifically states that doing Cultivation Exercises do not increase your Gong. He specifically states that you must cultivate your mind and character. The appellant testified that he only read chapter 7, health improvement and nothing else. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant does not have a fairly extensive knowledge of Falun Gong. [23] In reviewing the recording of the hearing, the RAD disagrees with the RPD's statement that the appellant has some knowledge of Falun Gong. When asked what evil cultivation is, the appellant stated after name and fame, but could not make anything else. Master Li states in chapter one of Zhuan Falun true cultivation is cultivating your mind, and your character. In chapter 4, Master Li talks about the attachments that one moves order to cultivate effectively. The RAD speculates that what the appellant stated was one of these attachments. If so, there are several other attachments that the appellant should reasonably have named. The RAD finds that the appellant does not understand this concept, given his testimony and lack of knowledge. [24] When the appellant was asked about karma, he stated it was the bad stuff in your body, and that virtue was the opposite. When the RPD asked, "Now, or when?" The appellant said he was not sure. When given a prompt by the RPD, "Could be from your ancestors?" he responded "Yes." When asked how he was going to increase his white substance, the appellant said by doing the third exercise, and then stated, "The hands choking." The third exercise is called "Penetrating the Two Cosmic Extremes." Master Li is quite clear that karma is transformed into virtue by practicing cultivation. Given the appellant's testimony on this topic, the RAD finds that the appellant does not have even the basic knowledge about karma, an important issue in Master Li's teachings. [25] In reviewing the appellant's testimony, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant is not now, nor ever has been, a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong. Documentation regarding the appellant's Falun Gong practice [26] The RPD found that the appellant had provided insufficient reliable credible evidence to support that he practiced Falun Gong exercises in Milliken Park. The appellant testified that he forgot to gather any supporting documentation. [27] The appellant submits that the RPD did not properly consider the evidence that were submitted, the photographs6 of the appellant practicing in Milliken Park. He submits that they were only used as a means of stating his lack of genuineness as a Falun Gong practitioner in the sur place aspect of the claim. [28] In observing the appellant's photographs, submitted in documentation, the RAD makes the following findings.7 The documents submitted only attest to the appellant's participation in Falun Gong activities, they do not attest to his motivation. The RAD notes that there are no letters of support or documentation to attest to his genuineness of practice of Falun Gong in Canada. No witnesses were called to support the genuineness of his practice in Falun Gong. The RAD concurs with the RPD's findings that insufficient reliable and credible evidence was produced to support his genuine practice of Falun Gong in Canada. In addition, the RAD found above that the appellant is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner given his lack of knowledge about Master Li's teachings, and his lack of commitment to reading and understanding the philosophy of Falun Gong. Other Issues Cousin's name [29] The RPD stated concerns about the appellant's credibility because he hid at a relative's home and could not give the name of the relative. [30] The appellant stated that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference regarding the appellant's credibility based on the fact that the appellant went to a relative's home and did not know the name of his relative where he was staying while in hiding. The appellant submits that the RPD's decision on this issue did not take into account the entire testimony of the appellant. [31] In listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD finds that the appellant did give explanation for not knowing this distant cousin's name. The RAD does not accept the appellant's explanation that he would always address her as "cousin" and that in China if you have a lot of relatives, you do not call them by name. The RAD does not profess to be an expert on the inter-workings of the Chinese culture regarding this issue. However, the RAD finds that it is not reasonable or credible, that you would be able to not know the name of the person who is allegedly providing you protection from the PSB. The RPD did not draw a negative inference from this finding, only questioned the appellant's general credibility. The RAD finds that this finding is not a determinative issue in the decision in this claim. The summons [32] The RPD stated further credibility concerns regarding the appellant's allegations that a summons was issued to him, and that the summons was not produced in documentation for the hearing. The RPD noted the information included on the Basis of Claim (BOC) form that the appellant provided documentation to support his claim. The RPD also noted that the appellant has been represented by counsel since March 25, 2013, and that it would be reasonable that he would have asked for the summons to be sent to him if it was missing as he stated in his testimony. The RPD also noted that the appellant testified that his grandmother had not requested a copy of the summons. [33] The appellant submitted that if a document is not reasonably available an appellant is not required to produce it, and the failure to produce it is not to be used to draw a negative inference. The appellant also submits that although he has been in Canada since March 5, 2013, he only made a refugee claim on March 25, 2015, and therefore would only have been able to obtain the help of a counsel after this. As a result, the RPD's statement that the appellant had been in Canada is irrelevant. The appellant quoting case law states that "The lack of corroborative evidence, in and of itself, cannot sustain a negative credibility determination."8 [34] The RAD notes the following. In spite of this issue having been presented in the RPD's decision, no documentation was produced to support the acquisition of the alleged summons. NDP documentation9 states that it is possible to get a copy of a warrant from the local PSB station. Given the above finding by the RAD that the appellant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that no summons was ever issued, and that the alleged raid never occurred. Jail visiting card and letter of expulsion [35] The RPD gave little weight to the Jail Visiting Card10 because it was a photocopy, and not in the original format. The RPD reasoned that it is difficult to determine the type of paper on which the original was printed or whether the information has been tampered with. The RPD also quoted NDP documentation11 on the availability of fraudulent documents in China. [36] The RPD gave little weight to the appellant's letter of expulsion from school12 because of credibility concerns, and the above quoted NDP documentation. [37] The appellant submits that just because fraudulent documents are easily obtained in China does not mean that these documents the appellant produced are therefore fraudulent The appellant submits case law, Lin v. Canada (Minister of citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 157,13 to support this submission. [38] The RAD concurs with the RPD's assessment of the photocopy of a Jail Visiting Card. The letter of expulsion of the appellant is also suspect because of the documentation quoted. The RAD found, earlier in this decision, that the appellant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, and that on a balance of probabilities, the alleged raid never occurred. As a result of this finding, the RAD finds that both documents submitted are fraudulent, and draws a negative inference concerning the appellant's willingness to submit fraudulent documentation to support his refugee claim. Exiting China [39] The RPD, quoting NDP documentation14 reasons why the appellant would be unable to leave China on his own documentation if he was wanted by the Public Security Bureau (PSB). The appellant stated that the PSB were searching for him because he participated in Falun Gong activities. The NDP reasoned that if this allegation was true, the appellant's name would be linked and identified in the computer scanning system. The RPD found that the PSB have no interest in finding or harming the appellant. [40] The appellant submits that the RPD erred in finding that the appellant was not wanted by the PSB authorities by virtue of the fact that the appellant left China on his own passport. The appellant submits that he had the assistance of a smuggler, and makes this submission in deference of relevant, recent, binding case law.15 The Justice in these cases stated that the Board's finding was based on the National Documentation Package. That included information about a lack of sharing between police units across China, and the fact that bribery is fraudulent. The Justice concluded that because of this information, the Board is not entitled to conclude that the Applicants story is implausible. [41] The appellant states that the smuggler bribed the officials so that he would have no problem in leaving the country. The appellant submits that the RPD's reasoning does not account for the fact that the smuggler could easily bypass said systems. [42] The RAD, with respect, disagrees. The documentation quoted by the RPD along with NDP documentation CHN104762.E,16 states that airport authorities are connected to Policenet, the PSB database of persons wanted by authorities. The RPD made reference to the Golden Shield Project, CHN104762.E,17 that indicates that all police units nationwide have access to the public security databases, including the "National Basic Population Information Database." The RAD further noted that Chinese law requires airlines to inform Chinese authorities of the names, dates of birth, and other pertinent information for all people exiting or entering China. As a result of this documentation, the RAD finds the appellant could not have left China on his own documentation if he was wanted by the authorities. [43] The RAD finds it not probable, given the documentation quoted by the RPD and RAD, that a person would be able to bribe the number of officials who would see the documentation of an alleged fugitive. The airline submitting documentation of the people on the manifest list would be seen electronically by many authorities. The RAD finds that the snakeheads ability to bribe officials at the airport would not be sufficient to hide the identity of a suspected fugitive. [44] The appellant argues that the snakehead had the means to bribe the necessary officials in order to leave the country using his own passport. As stated above, the appellant refers to Zhang18 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. [45] 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. [46] In the case at hand, the RPD did not engage in the speculation hundreds of officials would have to be bribed. [47] 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 was contained in Request for Information XXXX XXXX XXXX , dated July 2008. [48] Based on the foregoing, 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 reasonable findings based on implausibility, common sense and rationality, and may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.19 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.20 In this case, there is an evidential foundation for the RPD's findings. The RAD finds that the RPD's credibility finding and negative inference on this issue is sound. Failure to claim in the United States of America (USA) [49] The RPD drew a negative inference from the appellant's behaviour regarding not claiming in the USA. The RPD discounted the appellant's explanation that he did not know he could make a claim for protection in the USA. The RPD noted that he had been in the USA on a study trip less than one month before his second departure to China, and although only 17 years old, he would know he was safe in the USA and able to ask for help seeking protection. [50] The appellant submits that he was just following the advice and the directions of the smuggler he trusted to bring him safely abroad. The appellant submits that the RPD's finding in this issue is unreasonable, given his age and the circumstances. [51] The RAD concurs with the RPD's reasoning in this case. In order for the appellant to come to Canada, he had to commit an illegal act, the fact that he acknowledged at the hearing. If the appellant had a real fear of persecution, he would reasonably approach USA officials once arriving in the USA. As noted by the RPD, the appellant had been in the USA previously to study English. The RAD finds that this experience would have enabled him to have had some comfort in approaching USA officials. This issue is not a principal determination of the appellant's Refugee claim. As stated above in this decision, the RAD found the appellant not to be a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, the alleged raid fraudulent, and some of the documentation submitted to support his claim was fraudulent. Sur place [52] The RPD found, based on the totality of the evidence, that the appellant was not a credible witness. The RPD found that the appellant was not a Falun Gong practitioner in China; therefore the PSB were not looking for the appellant to persecute him. The RPD further found that the appellant is not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada, and only pursued Falun Gong activities in Canada to bolster his refugee claim. As a result, the RPD found that the appellant could return to his home in China safely. [53] The appellant submits that the RPD erred in not properly assessing the sur place aspect of the claim. The appellant argues that the RPD must make a finding on the appellant's current practices in order to determine whether he has a sur place claim. The appellant submits that the photographs submitted in documentation are sufficient evidence that the appellant is a Falun Gong practitioner. The appellant submits that the RPD did not deal with these photographs appropriately, only using the appellant's lack of credibility as a basis for giving them little weight. [54] To support the submissions, the appellant quoted a Federal Court case.21 The appellant submitted that the current case is similar, in that the RPD failed to assess whether or not the appellant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada. The appellant submits that this is a fatal error. The appellant further submits in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and in the face of direct corroborative evidence of the appellant's Falun Gong practice in Canada, the appellant has established himself as a Falun Gong practitioner. [55] Above in this decision, the RAD concurred with the RPD's reasoning for rejecting the photographs as a means of determining the appellant's genuineness of practice of Falun Gong in Canada. In addition, the RAD found that the appellant was not a genuine Falun Gong practitioner based on his lack of understanding and knowledge of basic principles and practices of Falun Gong. As a result, the Federal Court case reference is not applicable. No documentation was submitted to indicate that the appellant had been scrutinized by Chinese officials in Canada. In addition no evidence was adduced at the hearing to indicate that the appellant had taken any leadership, or participated in highly visible events denouncing the Chinese authorities for their behaviours regarding Falun Gong. Disposition [56] The RAD upholds the decision of the RPD, according to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, and finds that the appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person who would be subject to persecution should he return to China. (signed) "Robert S. Garner" Robert S. Garner October 2, 2015 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 46-47. 2 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 3 Valtchev, Rousko v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4497-99), Muldoon, July 6, 2001, at para 7. 4 Falun Dafa: Essentials for Further Advancement by the Hongzi, September 6, 1996; Translation updated in April 2001 5 Su, Bo Jin v. M.C.I. (F.C, no. IMM-2826-12), O'Reilly, January 4, 2013, 2013 FC 4, at para 18. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at 259-260. 7 Ibid. 8Zheng, Juan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5376-06), Shore, December 4, 2007, 2007 FC 1274,at para 15. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for China (October 31, 2014), item 9.3, Responses to Information Requests (RIR), CHN103401.E 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 253-254. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 31, 2014), item 3.24, RIR, CHN103134.E. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 242- 243. 13 Lin, Shou Gui v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4437-11), Russell, February 6, 2012, 2012 FC 157. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 31, 2014), item 10.4, RIR, CHN104762.E. 15 Sun, Hongxin v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-8088-13), de Montigny, March 27, 2015, 2015 FC 387; Zhang, Xiu Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2703-07), Dawson, April 23, 2008, 2008 FC 533. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for China (October 31, 2014), item 10.4, RIR, CHN104762.E. 17 18 Zhang, Xiu Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2703-07), Dawson, April 23, 2008, 2008 FC 533. 19 Numbi, Gaston Kipa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-92-12), Boivin, August 30, 2012; 2012 FC 1037, at para 19. 20 Miral, Stefnie Dinisha v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3392-97), Muldoon, February 12, 1999. 21 Chen, Shun Guan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1433-96), Lutfy, January 31, 1997. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-07396