 
RPD.15.7 (February 12, 2009)  
Disponible en françai s 
 
 
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR  :   TA9 -23815  
 
Private Proceeding / Huis clos  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
 
Claimant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXX  Demandeur(e)(s) d’asile  
   
   
Date(s) of H earing  November 28, 2011  Date(s) de l’audience  
   
   
Place of Hearing  Toronto, Ontario  Lieu de l’audience  
   
   
Date of Decision  December 12, 2011  Date de la décision  
   
   
Panel   XXXXXXXXXXXX   Tribunal  
    
    
Counsel for the 
Claimant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil(s) du / de la / des 
demandeur(e)(s) d’asil e 
   
   
Tribunal Officer    Agent(e) de tribunal  
   
   
Designated 
Representative(s)    Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the 
Minister    Conseil du ministre  
   
 
2011 CanLII 100711 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  :   
 
 
 
 
 REASONS AND DECISION  
INTRODUCTION  
[1] XXXXXXXXXX  is a citizen of the People's Republic of China (China) , seeking refugee 
protection pursuant to subsections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and  Refugee Protection Act 
(IRPA).1 
ALLEGATIONS  
[2] In late XXXXX  2008 a friend of the claimant introduced him to XXXXXXXXXX, as a way of 
dealing with chronic back injury from work.  Starting in XXXXXX  the claimant began to attend a 
practice session regularly.  O n XXXX , 2009 the session was raided by the PSB.  He hid at his wife's 
aunt's home and was told that the police came looking for him on XXXX .  Arrangements were 
made for the claimant to leave China .  While in hiding he obtained a Canadian Visitors Visa and 
subsequently left the country.  
DETERMINATION  
[3] I find the claimant is not a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96, as he does not have a 
well -founded fear of persecution in China for any of the five Convention grounds.  I further find the 
claimant is not  a person in need of protection under Section 97 as, on a balance of probabilities, his 
removal to China would not subject him personally to a risk to life or to a risk of cruel and unusual 
treatment or punishment or to a danger of torture.  
[4] My analysis  of this claim is as follows.  
ANALYSIS  
Identity  
[5] The claimant’s identity as a national of China was established by the personal identity 
documentation provided by the claimant.  
                                                 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27.  
2011 CanLII 100711 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  :   
 
 
 
 
 Credibility  
[6] I find that the claimant did not provide sufficient credible and trustwo rthy evidence to 
support his fear  of returning to China.  There were a  number of both credibility and plausibility 
concerns as well as some problems with the documentation filed in support of the claim .  These 
concerns were not adequately addressed by the claimant .  As a result of these concerns I do not 
accept, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant’s allegations with respect to what occurred in 
China that led to his flight.   There is insufficient credible evidence to establish that the claimant is a 
genuine practitioner of Falun Gong.  There is insufficient evidence to establish that the claimant 
would be perceived as such a practitioner by the Chinese authorities should he return to the People's 
Republic of China . 
[7] In these reasons I shall focus on wh at I consider to be the most significant concerns .  A non -
exhaustive list of the evidence that led me to the above conclusion are as follows:  
[8] During the hearing the claimant was asked why he would become involved in Falun Gong in 
2008 given the widespread and intensive crackdown against its practitioners.  It is the claimant's 
allegation that up until the time that the practice session was raided by the PSB and he went into 
hiding at his wife's aunt's home, he was unaware of the extent of the crackdown agai nst Falun Gong 
practitioners.  Given my understanding of what has occurred in China since 1999 I do not find the 
claimant ’s ignorance credible.  According to the documentation in 1999 the Falun Gong was 
publicly branded a cult and declared illegal.  Since that time it has been subject to a nationwide 
long -term campaign of intimidation and persecution.  Thousands of practitioners have been killed 
and tens of thousands are reported as missing.  There are further reports of the possibility of 
hundreds of thous ands of practitioners being harassed and detained.2  Practitioners are targeted in 
security sweeps prior to major events in the country.  The family members of practitioners have 
been subject to severe harassment.3  The government of China has publicized i ts opinion that Falun 
Gong is a common enemy of mankind.  Given such a widespread, public and extensive campaign I 
think it is reasonable to assume that most Chinese citizens would be aware of the dangers of being 
associated with Falun Gong.  The claimant states that he became a member of a secret group of 
                                                 
2 Exhibit R1, item 12.19.  
3 Exhibit R1 item 12.18.  
2011 CanLII 100711 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  :   
 
 
 
 
 practitioners who met regularly from XXXXX  2008 until XXXX  2009.  The claimant maintains 
that even though he was  this involved he did not know of the serious risks.  It was his explanation 
that his fellow  practitioners did not discuss this issue.  I do not find this explanation persuasive.  
Even if I acc ept that somehow the claimant was unaware of the dangers associated with practicing 
Falun Gong before he began to practice I think it is reasonable to assu me that after practicing for 
nine months in secret with a group of fellow practitioners he would have acquired the knowledge of 
the grave dangers he faced should he be caught in this practice.  I find this evidence undermines the 
credibility of his allegat ions that he became involved in Falun Gong in 2008.  
[9] It is the claimant's allegation that after the PSB raid he went into hiding at his wife's aunt's 
home in XXXXX .  The  claimant explained that he chose to hide there because this location was far 
away from his home.  I have a few concerns with respect to these allegations.  Firstly, according to 
the claimant's resident household registration this is the same city where he had moved from in 
2005.  This knowledge would be available to the authorities.  The cla imant further clarified that he 
stayed in the same district of the city where he had lived before.  The presence of the claimant's 
wife's aunt in this same city would in all likelihood also be known, or easily discovered, by the 
authorities.  When this con cern was put to the claimant he then stated that this was not his wife's 
aunt but rather his wife's friend.  He explained that it was a habit to refer to such a person as an aunt 
rather than a friend.  I am not persuaded by the claimant's explanations.  Th e claimant only stated 
this was not his wife's aunt in response to my concern.  I think it is reasonable to assume that he 
might have clarified the true nature of his relationship with her prior to the question, as she was 
referred to as his wife's aunt pr eviously in testimony.  I find this evidence further undermines the 
credibility of his allegations.  
[10]  The claimant presented his permanent resident household registration document, his Hukou .  
This document indicates it was registered on XXXXXXXX , 2010 .  He was thus registered as a 
resident of this address a year after he left the country and while  he was wanted by the PSB . 
According to the information before me with respect to the Hukou ,4 this document is meant to be 
reflection of the members of the househol d.  The exhibit notes that if one is wanted by the 
authorities it will be registered in his Hukou  record by the police, who administer the Hukou.   
                                                 
4 Exhibit R1 item 3.7  
2011 CanLII 100711 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  :   
 
 
 
 
 Given these circumstances the claimant was asked how he was able to have the Hukou  registered 
with his presen ce in the household and no indication that he was wanted by the authorities.  The 
claimant's response was that he never heard that he was wanted by the PSB.  He explained that he is 
not officially wanted as the authorities do not want to publicize that the y are pursuing Falun Gong 
practitioners.  I do not find this explanation satisfies my concerns.  It is clearly the claimant's 
allegation that he was and remains wanted by the PSB.  He has alleged that since the raid the PSB 
have come often to look for him at his home.  There is insufficient evidence before me to support 
the claimant ’s contention that the Chinese authorities would not provide any written record 
reflecting their interest or pursuit of a Falun Gong practitioner.  I find this evidence significa ntly 
undermines the credibility of his allegations that he was wanted by the PSB.  
[11]  A further concern I have related to the Hukou  was the claimant’s evidence that twice before 
this document was successfully mailed to him from China the re were failed attempts  to send it.  He 
stated that on occasions his family members tried to send it to Canada however it was returned to 
them by the post office.  The claimant stated that his family members did not provide their actual 
address when attempting  to post the docume nt.  He stated that the post office returned this 
document to other people's address.  I find this hard to accept as credible.  There was no evidence as 
to why the post office would refuse to mail the document .  If, however, the post office did have 
some c oncern with respect to the propriety of mailing this document to the claimant in Canada it is 
difficult to understand why they would have returned the Hukou  to an address different than the 
residence of the Hukou  itself or perhaps to the PSB  (acco rding to the documentation the Hukou  is 
the property of the PSB ).  I find this evidence further undermines the credibility of the claimant’s 
allegations.  
[12]  The claimant has provided a work termination letter which indicates that he was being let go 
as an employee bec ause of his involvement with Falun Gong.  I expressed to the claimant my 
concern with respect to the authenticity of this letter as there is writing on top of the seal.  I 
expressed to the claimant my thought that a seal or stamp is meant to seal the docum ent and that it 
would normally be placed on the document after the text has been written.  The claimant stated that 
he assumed the assistant prepared the letter, typed it and then stamped it for the boss to sign 
afterwards.  I do not find this explanation persuasive and I am applying little weight to this letter 
2011 CanLII 100711 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  :   
 
 
 
 
 when assessing the credibility of the claimant’s allegations that he was involved in Falun Gong 
while in China.  
[13]  In consideration of the concerns outlined above and the totality of the evidence befor e me I 
find the claimant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he was involved in the 
practice of Falun Gong in China with a group of other practitioners.  I find that he has failed to 
establish that he is wanted by the Chinese aut horities because of this practice.  
Falun Gong  Identity  
[14]  Having found that the claimant has not established he was practicing Falun Gong in China, 
or that he was involved in a practice group, I need to consider the possible sur place  elements to his 
claim.  The claimant came to the hearing with two letters from Falun Gong practitioners in Canada 
corroborating his current practice.  He has provided photographs of himself practicing Falun Gong  
in Canada . 
[15]  Given my findings above and in consideration of the total ity of the evidence before me I 
find, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant’s allegation that he was practicing Falun Gong in 
China was made for the purpose of supporting a fraudulent refugee claim.  This finding informs my 
assessment of whether th e claimant is currently a genuine practitioner.  Given my concerns with 
respect to the credibility of the claimant’s allegations and a lack of sufficient credible evidence that 
his stated practice of Falun Gong is genuine I find the allegation that he is c urrently a genuine 
practitioner is not credible, on the balance of probabilities.  I find, on the balance of probabilities, 
that the claimant became involved in Falun Gong in Canada for the purpose of supporting a 
fraudulent refugee claim.  
[16]  As a consequence  of the concerns outlined above I find that the claimant has failed to prove, 
on the balance of probabilities, the allegations of material fact on which his refugee claim is based.  
I do not accept on the balance of probabilities that he is currently being  pursued by the PSB in 
China because of his presence at and involvement in Falun Gong practice.  I find that he is not 
currently a genuine practitioner of Falun Gong and that he would not be perceived as such by the 
authorities in China.  
2011 CanLII 100711 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  :   
 
 
 
 
 [17]  To summarize, I fi nd the claimant’s evidence lacking in credibility with respect to the events 
material to his refugee claim.  Therefore, I find there is not a serious possibility of persecution 
should he return to China .  I therefore conclude that the claimant has failed t o establish a well -
founded fear of persecution under Section 96 of IRPA , and for these same reasons I find that the 
claimant is not a person in need of protection or at a risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual 
treatment or punishment, or a danger of to rture as set out in Section 97 of IRPA  and therefore his 
claim is denied.  
 
 
(signed)  “K. XXXXXXXXX ” 
  XXXXXXXXXXXX   
 December 12, 2011  
 Date  
 
2011 CanLII 100711 (CA IRB)

