Citation: 2019 RLLR 14
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 18, 2019
Panel: Teresa Maziarz
Counsel for the claimant(s): Jordan Duviner
Country: China
RPD Number: TB8-14763
ATIP Number: A-2020-01124
ATIP Pages: 0000104-0000108
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim relating to File Number TB8-14763, and to the Claimant, who is [XXX], [XXX]. The Panel has heard the claim at two sittings, on September 23rd, 2019 and December 18th, 2019, and is prepared to make a decision in the claim that is favourable to the Claimant.
[2] The Panel finds that the Claimant is a Convention refugee in accordance with section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Given this decision, the Panel will not provide an analysis with regard to section 97(1) of the Act.
[3] The Panel makes the decision in favour of the Claimant because she meets all of the elements of the definition of a Convention refugee.
[4] Starting firstly with the unspoken element of identity, the Claimant has produced ample evidence of who she is in terms of her name and date of birth and country of citizenship of China, which includes a certified true copy of her passport that is found in Exhibit 1, the original of which has been seized by authorities when she made her claim for refugee protection in Canada. There are other supplementary documents which support her identity, as is noted in the exhibits.
[5] The Panel did have a concern that her Canadian visa application provides a different account in terms of who her husband is and her family structure and her educational and work history. The Panel accepts on a balance of probabilities that it does not materially undermine the Claimant’s account of her identity. The Panel notes that in terms of her own identity, the application was made in the same name and date of birth and country of citizenship, and the Panel finds on a balance of probability that the other information was amended as she testified for the purpose of enhancing the likelihood of obtaining a Canadian visa in circumstances in which she was fearing persecution.
[6] I would note in this regard, also, that having described herself as a XXXX in the Canadian visa application. And without any offence to the Claimant, she did not come across as a sophisticated witness who is indeed someone in that profession. Having said that, while she did not have such sophistication, she was eloquent in regard to her religious belief, and I’ll turn to that later.
[7] The Claimant also satisfies the element of nexus in that she has established credibly a Basis of Claim that relates to the ground of religion. Specifically, the Claimant is an adherent of the Church of Almighty God, which is banned in China, and in that regard, she provided credible and trustworthy evidence in support of her faith. As noted in counsel’s submissions, she had a wealth of knowledge of the basis of her faith and she has letters of support that indicate she is an adherent of that faith, including a letter from one of the leaders of the faith in Canada, who discusses in his letter a verification process that the Claimant underwent.
[8] The Claimant also had a witness who came and testified about how they hold meetings of worship in Canada, and that information was substantially consistent with the information provided by the Claimant. It was the witness’s opinion that the Claimant is a genuine worshipper of the faith of the Church of Almighty God, and while that is a decision for the Panel to determine, it’s still relevant testimony to consider the opinion of a worshipper of the same faith who attends the same meetings, as does the Claimant, in Canada at the same place of worship and location.
[9] While the Claimant had some difficulty in terms of identifying some aspects of the Church of Almighty God as stated in her disclosures, I find that in the context of all of her knowledge that those concerns are remedied and are not determinative of the issue of credibility or of the issue of her genuineness of her faith. For example, I had asked — the Panel had asked at the first and second sittings about the view of the Church of Almighty God in regard to the Communist Party, and the answer provided, as I reflect further on the testimony, responded to what the church thinks in China of how the Communist Party treats its adherents, and so the Claimant went on to discuss how adherents are jailed, maltreated, et cetera. Further questions did not elicit the information that is in her disclosure; however, when counsel asked the question another way in terms of what name does the Church of Almighty God give to the Communist Party, the Claimant did answer correctly that it calls the Communist Party the Red Dragon.
[10] The Panel was also concerned that the Claimant was unable to discuss what is said to be, in her disclosure, a core tenet of the Church of Almighty God, and that is to participate in essentially battling the Communist Party. I accept that the Claimant understood the question to be in terms of physically slaying Communist members of the government, which is against their core belief.
[11] So those are just two examples. There were others, but as the Panel notes, in the context of the totality of the evidence of the Claimant’s knowledge of this faith, those concerns are no longer determinative of the claim and of the issue of credibility.
[12] The Claimant has also continued her faith in Canada, and that is supported by, again, the witness who testified, by her own consistent testimony, by the letters of support, by the letter of one of the leaders of the church in Canada, and by the photographs that have been provided, as well as, earlier noted, her knowledge.
[13] Turning to the element of the definition of a Convention refugee relating to prospective risk, the Claimant has credibly established on a balance of probabilities that she would face a reasonable chance of persecution in China if she were to return to that country. And while I have kept the videos or snapshots of the videos that were provided in her disclosure, I don’t make the finding on that basis. I make the finding on the basis that the Claimant has shown credibly on a balance of probabilities that she is a genuine adherent of the Church of Almighty God and that it is not reasonable to expect that she drop that faith and return to China, and also, the totality of her evidence shows that she would indeed continue in that faith, and as an adherent of that faith she would therefore be persecuted if she returned to China.
[14] Now, I did consider the possibility of the Claimant’s activities in Canada coming to light to the Chinese authorities, and I have considered their response to information requests in that regard and other objective evidence in the disclosures, but I don’t find that to be a determinative factor because I don’t have sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to find that she would be identified from the snaps of the videos that are shown in Exhibit 6, wherein she does not appear to be named, and the name that is on those snaps has been placed after their printing for my benefit so that — or whoever the Panel were to have been — so that the Panel would know that she is in those snaps of the video. And in any case, it’s her genuineness and the likelihood that she would continue her genuine faith in the Church of Almighty God if she were to return to China that raises and meets the risk of a reasonable chance of persecution from Chinese authorities.
[15] So turning to the matter of state protection. Given that the state is the agent of persecution, as is well-documented in the National Documentation Package for China, and in counsel’s and the Claimant’s own disclosures, there is no possibility of the Claimant receiving adequate state protection at the operational level relevant to her personal circumstances as a genuine adherent of the Church of Almighty God, and so therefore, that aspect of the definition of the — of a Convention refugee is also met.
[16] Just to give one example from the Claimant’s evidence: There is, in Exhibit 6, starting at page 15, evidence from a professor from the University of Nevada that talks about the church in China. And that’s one example, but from what I understand is that if someone is indeed a genuine member of the Church of Almighty God then these documents support the reasonable chance of persecution of such members in China, as does, of course, the National Documentation Package that I’ve mentioned.
[17] Turning to the matter of internal flight alternative. I find that because the state is the agent of persecution and has the means to find the Claimant in every part of the country, especially given that she would continue to express her faith as a member of the Church of Almighty God were she returned to China, that there is no viable internal flight alternative for her in China.
[18] And — so I’ve given further consideration to the file and to some more testimony, but I believe that I have reviewed everything for the decision that is relevant to support the finding of the Claimant being a Convention refugee. Of course, the Panel’s examples are truncated and the record will speak for itself, not only in terms of the objective evidence, but also the Claimant’s testimony that demonstrates her genuine faith in the Church of Almighty God.
[19] So for all of these reasons, I find that the Claimant is a Convention refugee in accordance with section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and that her claim is allowed.
[20] Thank you, everyone for your participation. This hearing is concluded.
— HEARING ADJOURNED