TB4-06708

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 : TB4-06708 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal xxxxx (a.k.a. xxxxxxx) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 5, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Daniel McSweeney Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Elyse Korman Barrister & 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] xxxxx (the Appellant), a citizen of China, has appealed a negative determination of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) issued on July 7, 2014. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant fears authorities in China as a result of his Falun Gong practice. The Appellant was introduced to Falun Gong by a friend in mid-July of 2012 to alleviate the Appellant's neck pain. The Appellant was afraid to practice; however, in August 2012 his friend again indicated that he could teach the Appellant to practice Falun Gong at home. After practicing at home for two months the Appellant alleges that his neck condition improved. The Appellant joined a practice group in mid-December 2012. After three months in the group the Appellant's health improved remarkably. [4] The Appellant alleges that his practice group was raided on July xxx, 2013 by members of the Public Security Bureau (PSB). The Appellant managed to escape and go into hiding at a cousin's home. On July xxx, 2013, the PSB went to the Appellant's home, searched his home, and interrogated his son who was living there temporarily because of renovations at his son's home. The PSB also confiscated the Appellant's notebook which contained phone numbers of his friends and relatives. On July 29, 2013 the Appellant learned that three members of his practice group were arrested. The Appellant alleges that the PSB issued a summons for him to report, and continued to visit his home and the homes of his son and other relatives. [5] The Appellant enlisted the assistance of a smuggler to leave China. The Appellant traveled to Canada on September 10, 2013 and made his claim for protection on October 18, 2013. [6] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing that spanned two sittings (December 17, 2013 and February 25, 2014). Written reasons were issued on July 7, 2014. The RPD found that the Appellant's allegation of being a genuine Falun Gong practitioner was not credible based on the following individual findings: 1. The RPD found that the Appellant's testimony regarding PSB visits to his home was internally inconsistent and contradicted his previous testimony. The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible with respect to the activities of the PSB. The RPD drew a negative inference as to the credibility of the Appellant and finds that the events on February xxx, 2014 did not occur. 2. The RPD drew a negative inference to the credibility of the claimant given the inconsistency between the information in his IMM-5669 regarding when he began to practice Falun Gong, and his Basis of Claim (BoC) narrative. The RPD found that the Appellant's explanation for the inconsistency was not reasonable. 3. The RPD found the Appellant's testimony about his being in hiding was not credible and drew a negative inference regarding the credibility of the Appellant. The dates in the Appellant's revised BoC narrative for when he went into hiding did not conform to the dates provided in his IMM-5669, and the Appellant's explanation was found not to be reasonable. 4. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference and found that it would be unlikely that the Appellant would have been able to leave China without being detected, even with the use of a smuggler, given the documentary evidence regarding the checks and balances in airports in China. 5. The RPD found it unlikely that the PSB would waste their time returning to the Appellant's home, between July 2013 and February 2014, given that they did not issue an arrest warrant. 6. The RPD drew a negative inference regarding the credibility of the Appellant given that nothing has happened to his son since the PSB started looking for the Appellant as of July 2013. 7. The RPD placed little weight on the summons as it was unable to verify its authenticity given that the Appellant had thrown away the envelope in which the summons came, and given that the summons did not provide the address where the Appellant was ordered to report and it did not specify the consequences of the Appellant's failure to appear. 8. The RPD gave little weight to the letter from a fellow Falun Gong practitioner given that its contents were not consistent with the testimony of the Appellant. The RPD place little weight on the second letter from a practitioner given that the letter can only establish the Appellant's attendance at exercises but does not establish the genuineness of the Appellant's practice. [7] Appeal pleadings were received on August 8, 2014. In the appeal, counsel argued that the RPD erred in in its findings of fact. Specific errors included: 1. The RPD erred in its finding of fact that the PSB were not interested in the Appellant as the finding was speculative. 2. The RPD erred in its finding of fact regarding the corroborative documentary evidence (summons, failure to issue a warrant) as it misconstrued the object of country condition documents. 3. The RPD erred in its strong negative inference regarding the lack of a warrant and given that it had previously found that the summons was not genuine. 4. The RPD erred by relying on the number of PSB visits to the Appellant's home as a basis for determining that the warrant should have been left, as this did not conform to the documentary evidence. The RPD erred by ignoring the list of confiscated items and did not mention why this document was undeserving of weight. 5. The RPD erred by finding that the Appellant's exit from China using his own passport undermined the credibility of his claim based on the vagueness of the Appellant's testimony. The Appellant did not provide vague testimony regarding the assistance he received from the smuggler at the airport. 6. The RPD erred in finding that the smuggler could not have arranged the Appellant's exit from China because it was not possible to bribe all officials given the number of security checkpoints and procedures. 7. The RPD erred by making microscopic findings regarding minor and peripheral inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence regarding the number of times the PSB went to the Appellant's home, and when the Appellant began practicing Falun Gong. [8] The Appellant asks that the RAD set aside the decision of the RPD and find that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. ANALYTICAL APPROACH [9] Counsel argued that the appeal to RAD is a de novo proceeding given the authority provided to RAD and that no deference be assigned to the decision of the RPD. In assessing the appeal, the RAD is guided by the recent Huruglica1 decision which outlines the approach that the RAD should take as an appellate body in reviewing the first level decisions of the RPD. Justice Phelan has indicated that the RAD conducts a hybrid appeal and is required to review all aspects of the RPD decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. This authority comes from the broad remedial powers of the RAD, including the power to set aside and substitute the RPD determination that, in its opinion, should have been made as per s. 111(1)(b) of IRPA. The RAD can recognize and respect the conclusions of the RPD on issues such as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching its conclusion; however, the RAD has equal or greater expertise to the RPD in the interpretation of country condition evidence. The RAD is not restricted to intervening on facts where there is a palpable and overriding error. It is not necessary for the RAD to find an error on some standard of review basis in order to trigger its remedial power. ANALYSIS [10] The RAD focused on two issues in assessing this appeal: a) Was the Appellant wanted in China for being a genuine Falun Gong practitioner? and b) Is the Appellant a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada and therefore would he face a risk of persecution should he return to China? Appellant's Allegations in China [11] The credibility of the Appellant's allegations of a genuine Falun Gong practice in China was undermined by inconsistencies in his oral testimony, as well as concerns with the evidence he provided in support of his claim. [12] The RPD drew a negative inference to the credibility of the claimant given the inconsistency between the information in his IMM-5669 and his BoC regarding when he began to practice Falun Gong, his going into hiding and his BoC narrative. The Appellant's original BoC narrative indicated that the practice was raided on June xxx, 2013, and that the PSB first came to the Appellant's home on June xxx, 2013. The Appellant's BoC narrative was revised and submitted to the RPD on December 12, 2013 which was shortly before the Appellant's first sitting. The RPD noted on the record that the Appellant's IMM-56692 responses were not consistent with the revised BoC narrative and were more consistent with the original BoC narrative. In fact, the IMM-5669 responses were consistent with the original BoC narrative. For example in response to question 12, the Appellant indicated that he went into hiding in June 2013. In response to question nine regarding memberships or associations the Appellant indicated that he was a member of Falun Gong until June 2013. When asked to explain the inconsistencies, the Appellant indicated that this was due to an interpretation error. The Appellant did not make any efforts to indicate that there were problems with the interpretation of his IMM-5669 until he was confronted with the inconsistencies. In addition, the RAD noted that the alleged errors in the IMM-5669 were consistent with the dates in the original BoC narrative. Each of these documents was interpreted to the Appellant by a different individual. It is implausible that two different individuals would make the same error. As such, the Appellant's explanation for the inconsistency was not reasonable. The inconsistency in the date of the PSB raid on the Falun Gong practice site, and when the Appellant went into hiding, undermined the credibility of the Appellant's allegation of his practice and the raid. [13] The RPD noted in its reasons that the Appellant's IMM-5669 contained conflicting information regarding when the Appellant first began to practice Falun Gong. The IMM-5669 indicated that the Appellant began his practice in December 2012. The BoC narrative indicated that the Appellant was introduced to Falun Gong and began to practice in August of 2012 and that the Appellant joined group sessions in mid-December 2012. When asked to explain the inconsistency, the Appellant explained that he indicated in his IMM-5669 when he joined the practice group. This explanation was not reasonable given that the Appellant testified that he began to practice in August 2012 and that the practice improved his physical condition. The Appellant also testified that his son had seen him practicing the exercises for the first time in the middle of August of 2012. It would be reasonable for the Appellant to provide consistent evidence as to when he began practicing Falun Gong, as this was the foundation of his claim. The inconsistency in the Appellant's evidence as to when he began to practice undermined his claim that he was a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in China. [14] A review of the recording of the hearing revealed an inconsistency in the Appellant's testimony as to when he began to practice Falun Gong. The Appellant was asked when he first started practicing and he responded: "when I was back home in the year 2011; 2012; August of 2012." This inconsistency in the Appellant's testimony concerning the core basis of his claim undermined the credibility of his genuine Falun Gong practice in China. [15] A review of the recording of the hearings reveals that the RPD was concerned with the Appellant's failure to indicate yes to question 6(b) of his IMM-5669 that he was currently charged with, on trial for, or party to a crime or offense, or subject of any criminal proceedings in any other country? There was some discussion by counsel and the RPD that the Appellant being summoned by the PSB did not amount to being party to any criminal proceedings. The RPD, however, indicated that the fact that the Appellant was issued a summons was evidence that the Appellant was a party to a crime or offense. When asked to explain his failure to indicate yes to question 6(b), the Appellant testified that he did not view himself as a criminal. The RPD did not accept this explanation given that the Appellant's entire claim of a fear of persecution or harm in China was based on his fear of being charged and imprisoned by the PSB because of his Falun Gong practice. The Appellant was aware that he was summoned in relation to a criminal offense as this was included in his notice of seizure as well as his summons. The Appellant's failure to indicate that he was a party to a crime or offense in China undermined the credibility of his claim that he was a genuine Falun Gong practitioner, and that he was wanted by the PSB because of his practice. [16] The Appellant provided inconsistent testimony regarding his study of Zhuan Falun in China. The Appellant testified that his group leader had a hand written version of Zhuan Falun that was used as a basis for discussion at the group practices. When asked to clarify the statement, the Appellant then indicated that the version that the leader had was printed from the computer. This inconsistency undermined the Appellant's credibility as a witness. [17] The RPD noted that the Appellant provided contradictory evidence regarding whether or not his son was living at his house during the final visit of the PSB on February xxx, 2014. This conflicted with his earlier testimony that his son moved back to his home on February xxx 2014. When confronted with the inconsistency the Appellant indicated that the PSB went to his son's home on February xxx, 2014 and not to his home. He then indicated that he did not understand the RPD. This explanation was not reasonable as it would be reasonable for the Appellant to remember the events surrounding the last time that the PSB had been to his home, especially given that it took place several weeks before the hearing. [18] The RAD considered the claim-specific documents provided by the Appellant. The Appellant testified that all of his documents were sent to him by his son via courier and received on December 5, 2013. When asked if he had any proof that the documents were sent from China, the Appellant responded that he had thrown away the envelope and he did not know that he needed it. The Appellant testified that he was represented by an immigration consultant and the Appellant had competent representation throughout the process. Given the fact that the Appellant knew that he had to provide documents to support his claim, and given that the Appellant was represented by counsel as well as an immigration consultant, it is not reasonable that the Appellant would not have been told to retain proof of the provenance of his documents to provide to the RPD. In addition, the RAD notes that the documentary evidence indicates that fraudulent documents are available throughout China3. Given the: lack of evidence of how and when the documents came to be in the possession of the Appellant and from where they were sent; the availability of fraudulent documents; and the lack of evidence regarding the existence of the Appellant's son (see below), the RAD finds that the provenance of the documents has not been established. As such, little weight can be placed on the documents allegedly sent from China. [19] Other than the Appellant's oral testimony, the remaining evidence referred to in the claim depends on the Appellant's son. The Appellant alleges that his son was at home when the PSB visited, confiscated his booklet, and issued the summons. The Appellant's son was also at home on subsequent visits by the PSB. The Appellant's son safeguarded the Appellant's documents and sent the documents from China to Canada. The entirety of the Appellant's claim regarding his being wanted by the PSB depends on the third hand accounts by the Appellant's son. The RAD noted that the Appellant did not provide any documentary evidence to attest to the existence of a son, and the fact that his son was staying at his home or in China during the period of alleged persecution. For example the Appellant's Household Register4 does not list a son as a member of the household. The Appellant's son did not provide a letter or affidavit along with the documents which he allegedly sent to attest to the fact that the PSB had come to his home to search out the Appellant despite the fact that the Appellant was aware of the need to provide evidence from China in support of his claim. The Appellant could have reasonably requested evidence from his son regarding the PSB visits, and proof of his sending of the documents from China to Canada via courier between the first sitting on December 17, 2013, and the second sitting on February 25, 2014. The RAD also noted that the Appellant's BoC narrative did not contain a threat by the PSB to charge and arrest the Appellant's son for harbouring, as the Appellant testified. The Appellant did not provide evidence of the PSB pursuit of the Appellant and the visits to the Appellant's home despite the RPD questioning the Appellant regarding his lack of evidence establishing the provenance of the documents from China. [20] Given the credibility concerns with the Appellant's allegations that he was a genuine Falun Gong practitioner (see above) and given the concerns with the genuineness of the summons (see below), there was sufficient evidence before the RPD to question the credibility of the Appellant and his allegations, including the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that his son had received visits from the PSB as he was living in the Appellant's home. [21] The RPD placed little weight on the summons as it was unable to verify its authenticity given that: the Appellant had thrown away the envelope in which the summons came; the summons did not provide the address where the Appellant was ordered to report; and it did not specify the consequences of the Appellant's failure to appear. Counsel argued that the RPD erred in its finding of fact that the PSB were not interested in the Appellant as the finding was speculative and based on the RPD's misconstruing of country condition documents. The RAD considered the summons and concurs with the RPD that there were concerns with the summons. A review of the record indicates that the RPD questioned the Appellant regarding a concern on the face of the summons. The summons indicated that the Appellant was being ordered to report to the PSB office according to article 92 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The summons was issued on August xxx 2013. The RPD noted that the documentary evidence5 indicates that the Criminal Procedures Law was amended in 2012 and came into force on January 1, 2013. The amended law has moved the article on summoning (formerly Article 92) to article 117 as cited below. Article 92 is renumbered as Article 117 and amended to read: A criminal suspect for whom an arrest or detention is not necessary may be summoned to a designated place in the city or county where the criminal suspect resides or his or her residence for interrogation, but credentials from the people's procuratorate or public security authority shall be produced. A criminal suspect discovered on the scene may be verbally summoned after a work pass is produced, but it shall be noted in the interrogation transcript. The duration of interrogation by summons or forced appearance may not exceed 12 hours; or, if it is necessary to detain or arrest a criminal suspect in an extraordinarily significant or complicated case, the duration of interrogation by summons or forced appearance may not exceed 24 hours. A criminal suspect shall not be actually held in custody by successive summons or forced appearance. During the period of interrogation by summons or forced appearance, the meals and necessary rest time of the criminal suspect shall be ensured.6 [22] The summons was issued by the PSB in an urban area of Shanghai which is the largest and most sophisticated cities in China, and is the financial hub of the country. As such, the RAD finds that it would be reasonable for authorities in Shanghai to adjust their pre-printed summonses to reflect the change in authority from article 92 to article 117. Given that the summons was issued exactly 8 months after coming into force, the RAD finds that the inconsistency between the summons provided and the existing law undermines the genuineness of the summons. [23] Given the: lack of evidence of the provenance of the documents; lack of evidence on the record regarding the existence of the Appellant's son; concerns with the content of the summons and; availability of fraudulent documents throughout China, the RAD concurs with the RPD that little weight can be placed on the summons in support of the Appellant's allegations. [24] Counsel argued that the RPD did not consider the seizure notice. Given that: the Appellant was found to have provided a non-genuine summons; the Appellant has failed to provide evidence attesting to the provenance of the documents from China; the lack of evidence regarding the existence of the Appellant's son who allegedly received and sent the seizure notice; the documentary evidence regarding the availability of fraudulent documents in China and; the Appellant provided questionable evidence from following Falun Gong practitioners (see below), the RAD finds that little weight could be placed on the seizure notice in support of the Appellant's allegations. [25] The RAD considered the medical evidence provided by the Appellant7. The Appellant testified that he received this hospital booklet in xxx of 2011 to replace his older booklet. The introductory page of the evidence was not translated. The interpreter translated the portions of the documents that were not provided to the RPD. The document indicated that the Appellant was married. This conflicted with the other evidence on record which indicated that the Appellant was divorced in 1995. This inconsistency put into question the genuineness of the document. In addition, there was no indication in the translation provided at the hearing to indicate that the booklet provided was a replacement or a re-issue or the date that it was issued to corroborate the Appellant's oral testimony. [26] The RAD also identified another concern regarding the medical booklet. The Appellant based his claim on his practice of Falun Gong. The Appellant alleges that he began practicing because of pain in his neck which began in September 2011. The medical booklet begins and ends with treatment regarding the Appellant's neck pain which is directly related to the basis of the Appellant's claim. The RAD noted that there were no other entries into the booklet regarding the Appellant's health. Given: the concerns with the provenance of the documents; the medical booklet does not have any security features and its contents are completed in handwriting and; the document focuses solely on the medical issue which caused the Appellant to return to Falun Gong; it is more likely than not that the medical document was produced to support the Appellant's claim. Similarly, the RAD noted that the x-ray diagnosis report8 was completed by hand, did not have any security features, and was allegedly received in the same package where provenance has not been established; therefore the x-ray report is of little probative value in support of the Appellant's allegations. [27] The RPD drew a negative inference regarding the credibility of the Appellant given that nothing has happened to his son since the PSB started looking for the Appellant as of July 2013. Counsel argued that this was an error given that the documentary evidence did not support the fact that family members were routinely persecuted or harmed. As outlined above, the existence of the Appellant's son has not been established and therefore this issue is not germane to the RAD's assessment of the appeal. [28] The Appellant provided evidence that his ticket to Canada9 had been purchased on July xxx, 2013. This is evidence that the Appellant had planned to visit Canada on September 10, 2013 and had booked his tickets well before any alleged raid on his practice site as he alleged on July xxx, 2013. Given that: the Appellant allegation of a genuine Falun Gong practice in China was found not to be credible; the Appellant's allegations of the raid and being wanted by the PSB were not credible and; the fact that the Appellant had intended and made arrangements to travel to Canada before the alleged raid; the RAD finds it, more likely than not, that the Appellant alleged that he was a Falun Gong practitioner in order to bolster of fraudulent refugee claim. [29] Given that the Appellant's allegations of being wanted by the PSB were found not to be credible, the RAD finds that it was unnecessary to address any RPD findings and alleged errors regarding the Appellant's exit from China using his own passport and a smuggler. Genuineness of Falun Gong Practice in Canada [30] The RAD is cognizant that the RPD 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 in assessing the genuineness of the Appellants' practice and to consider the Appellants' motive for practicing Falun Gong as per Su.12 [31] The RAD considered the totality of the evidence on the record regarding the genuineness of the Appellant's Falun Gong practice. A review of the recording revealed that the Appellant had significant knowledge of the principles of Falun Gong and was able to perform exercise 3 correctly. The RAD noted 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." [32] The Appellant was found not to be genuine Falun Gong practitioner in China. The Appellant arrived in Canada on September 10, 2013 and alleged that he began practicing at xxx Park on September xxx, 2013. The Appellant met an immigration consultant on September 16 or 17, 2013 to begin pursuing his claim. The Appellant did not provide any evidence to support an event or something else which could underpin his turning to Falun Gong in Canada and which would support this claim of genuine Falun Gong practice. The Appellant testified that he practiced on Saturdays and Sundays at xxx Park between September xxx, 2013 and the end of November. He attended two workshops on Falun Gong theory at a school in November of 2013. He distributed flyers on three to four occasions in October and November 2013. He did not provide evidence of ongoing participation in Falun Gong between the end of November and the second sitting at the end of February. The Appellant did not forge links with the Falun Dafa Association. [33] The RPD gave little weight to the letter from a fellow Falun Gong practitioner given that its contents were not consistent with the testimony of the Appellant. The RPD place little weight on the letter from xxx as the Appellant testified that he did not attend any Falun Gong events with the writer, which contradicted the letter. The RPD placed little weight on the letter from xxx as it could only verify the Appellant's attendance at xxx Park, and could not attest to the genuineness of the Appellant's practice. Neither letter indicates on what basis the writers knew that the Appellant was a genuine practitioner. The letter from Mr. xxx does not indicate that the Appellant and he distributed Falun Gong flyers as the Appellant testified. As such, the letters are of little probative value in establishing the Appellant's profile as a genuine practitioner. [34] The photographs of the Appellant practicing, and distributing flyers cannot and do not establish the genuineness of the Appellant's practice. The Appellant testified that he attended the practice at xxx Park for two months, from September xxx, 2014 until the end of November. He did not provide evidence of continued practice between the end of November and the second sitting at the end of February. [35] The RAD is guided in its analysis by a decision in Li14 in assisting it in assessing its forward-looking decision. In Li, Madam Justice Gleason concludes that a claimant must stratify the RPD that he or she will continue to practice his or her faith in China. Li also states that: 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.15 [36] 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 evidence 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 [37] The RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection as per s. 111 (1)(a) of IRPA. [38] The Appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Daniel McSweeney" Daniel McSweeney November 5, 2014 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 1, IMM-5669, pp. 49 - 52. 3 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, Response to Information Request (RIR), Number CHN 104579.E, 21 October 2013, Item 3.22. 4 RPD's Record, Exhibit 6, Appellant's Household Register, pp. 107 - 110. 5 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2012 Amendment), Item 9.5. 6 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2012 Amendment), Item 9.5. 7 RPD's Record, Exhibit 6, Hospital Booklet, pp. 111 - 125. 8 RPD's Record, Exhibit 6, X-Ray Report, pp. 124 - 125. 9 RPD's Record, Exhibit 6, E-Ticket, p. 139. 10 Ding, Lijie v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3708-13), Mactavish, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 820. 11 Jiang, Sumei v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-13-12), Zinn, September 11, 2012 FC 1067. 12 Su, Hao Wen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7356-12), Gleason, May 17, 2013; 2013 FC 518. 13 Chen, Hongzhen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1956-13), Russell, July 28, 2014; 2014 FC 749. 14 Li, Shi Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. IMM-8521-11), Gleason, August 15, 2012; 2012 FC 998. 15 Li, Shi Jie v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. 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 : TB4-06708