Docket: IMM-21132-24
Citation: 2026 FC 552
Ottawa, Ontario, April 27, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SHUIGUAN ZHENG
|
|
HUAMEI ZHENG
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicants, Shuiguan Zeng [Principal Applicant] and his spouse, Huamei Zheng [Associate Applicant] seek judicial review of the decision of the Refuge Appeal Division [RAD] which upheld the decision of the Refugee Pretention Division [RPD] finding that the Applicants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[2] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this application. The RAD’s decision was reasonable.
Background
[3] The Applicants are citizens of China. They entered Canada in 2019 to visit their daughter. The Principal Applicant claims that in June 2020, while he was in Canada, he learned from his sister that the house church he attended in China had been raided by the Public Security Bureau [PSB] and his cousin and two other congregants were arrested. His sister told him that the police had searched the Principal Applicant’s home in China, interrogated her and her family and returned the next day with a summons issued to the Principal Applicant [Summons]. The Principal Applicant claims that he fears persecution in China on religious grounds. Both Applicants also claim that they are now practicing Christians in Canada and face persecution from Chinese authorities if they return to China and practice Christianity there. They made claims for refugee protection in September 2020.
[4] In a decision dated July 5, 2022, the RPD dismissed their claim, the determinative issue being credibility. The RPD found much of the Applicants’ evidence and testimony to be inconsistent, thereby rebutting the presumption of truthfulness on their part. The RPD found that Applicants did not establish that they were trustworthy and reliable witnesses. There were major inconsistencies in their evidence which led the RPD to make negative inferences regarding the credibility of their profile as Christians and their allegations that the PSB visited their house and are looking for them.
[5] The Applicants then appealed to the RAD. The RAD issued a negative decision on August 4, 2023. The Applicants sought leave and judicial review of that decision. On consent, the application was granted by Order dated July 24, 2024, and the matter was remitted back to a different RAD panel for redetermination. On October 31, 2024, the RAD issued the redetermination decision that is the subject of this judicial review.
RAD Decision
[6] On redetermination, the RAD held that the RPD had correctly found that the Applicants are not credible and dismissed their appeal.
[7] The RAD accepted the six items of new evidence that were submitted by the Applicants after the appeal had been perfected but declined to hold an oral hearing.
[8] The RAD found that the notice of arrest issued to the Principal Applicant’s cousin [NOA], which is dated June 13, 2020, and issued to the arrestee’s family member Shujin Zheng (who is listed as the sister of the Principal Applicant’s spouse in her refugee protection application) was fraudulent. The RAD arrived at this finding based on the objective country documents and a comparison of the issued NOA with a sample contained in the objective country documents. The RAD described four instances where the NOA did not correspond to the sample. Having found that the NOA was not genuine, the RAD also found that no weight could be given to the Summons dated June 15, 2020, and issued to the Principal Applicant who is said to be “suspected of participating in activities of an illegal underground church organization”
. The RAD found that the Summons could not be given weight because it was issued by the same organization and in relation to the same events, that is, they were interrelated.
[9] The RAD also found that the Principal Applicant’s evidence in his Basis of Claim narrative and his testimony were inconsistent as to the circumstances in which the PSB delivered the Summons, a critical document, and did not accept his explanation for the discrepancy. Given the Principal Applicant’s inconsistent testimony and the fraudulent documents, the RAD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the PSB did not visit or leave a summons for the Principal Applicant as alleged.
[10] The RAD also found that the RPD was correct in its finding that there were inconsistencies in the Principal Applicant’s testimony related to when he first attended church.
[11] Given these concerns, as well as an uncontested credibility finding of the RPD regarding the inconsistencies in how the Principal Applicant learned of the arrest of his fellow practitioners, the RAD found that the Principal Applicant was not a credible witness, and he was not a Christian in China.
[12] The RAD also found that the RPD was correct to find that the Applicants do not have a sur place claim. The RAD described the Principal Applicant’s testimony about his involvement with the church and his religious knowledge. The RAD acknowledged that the threshold for religious knowledge is low but found that the Principal Applicant’s testimony was vague and his knowledge was superficial. The RAD agreed with the RPD that the Principal Applicant’s testimony did not establish his alleged profile as a Christian. The RAD also considered the new evidence submitted by the Applicants and their related testimony but found, for the reason it stated, that the letters from their son and related testimony was not credible evidence and afforded it no weight. The decision also noted that even if the photos of the Applicants at a parade show they participated in that event, the RAD had already found that they are not genuine Christians.
Issues and Standard of Review
[13] In my view, the application raises two issues:
-
Was the RAD’s decision reached in procedurally fair manner; and
-
Was the RAD’s decision reasonable?
[14] The standard of review for issues of procedural fairness is correctness (see Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). Functionally, this requires the Court’s analysis to focus on whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).
[15] The standard of review on the merits of the RAD’s decision is reasonableness. On judicial review the Court “asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 99).
Was the RAD’s decision reached in a procedurally fair manner?
Applicants’ Position
[16] The Applicants submit that the RAD’s determination concerning the NOA was procedurally unfair because the Applicants had no notice that the authenticity of this document was at issue. The matter was not raised by the RPD or discussed in the RPD’s decision. It was also not raised or discussed by the RAD during the Applicants’ RAD hearing. The Applicants therefore did not address the authenticity of this document in their appeal as they had no reason to believe it was necessary. The Applicants submit that this was the same error that they identified with respect to the RAD’s first decision, which was overturned on consent. By failing to provide notice of this new issue, the RAD deprived the Applicants of their procedural right to respond to the RADs concerns with respect to a critical document.
Respondent’s position
[17] The Respondent submits that the RAD’s findings on the NOA did not raise a new issue and subsequently did not require the RAD to provide notice about its credibility to the Applicants. The Applicants’ credibility was the crux of the RPD’s decision and was the primary focus of their appeal to the RAD. It was procedurally fair for the RAD to find an additional basis to question the Applicants’ credibility using the evidentiary record before the RPD, particularly where the Applicants’ credibility is a live issue on appeal. It was also open to the RAD to independently assess the NOA, a central document in the Applicants’ claim, and find that it was not authentic.
[18] The Respondent submits that the Applicants’ credibility was already an issue before the RPD. The Applicants challenged the RPD’s credibility findings on appeal and asserted that the RPD failed to conduct an analysis of the Summons and the NOA. Therefore, the RAD reasonably conducted an analysis of the NOA.
[19] Finally, the Respondent submits that the Applicants’ assertion that the RAD repeated the same determinative error that the Applicants identified with respect to the RAD’s first decision is a mischaracterization. The consent order states that the parties agreed that the RAD based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact in its assessment of the NOA. The Court did not find a denial of natural justice in the first RAD hearing and decision.
Analysis
[20] The RPD found that the determinative issue in the Applicant’s claim was credibility. The Applicants’ appeal to the RAD raised the issue that the RPD erred in its credibility finding. In their written submissions to the RAD, the Applicants stated that the appeal gave rise to a single issue “whether the RPD's decision is based on unsustainable credibility findings.”
[21] This Court has previously held that no procedural fairness issue arises when the RAD finds an additional basis to question an applicant’s credibility using the evidentiary record that was before the RPD. That is, where credibility was already in issue before the RPD and the evidence in issue was part of the RPD record (Oluwaseyi Adeoye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 246 at paras 11, 13).
[22] This was elaborated upon in Savit v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 194:
[17] However, the case law takes a realistic approach and recognizes that the RAD is not required to give notice when it merely supports a negative credibility finding with facts that were already in the record: See, for example, Sary v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 178 at paragraph 31 [Sary]; Oluwaseyi Adeoye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 246; Bari v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 896 at paragraph 28. As summarized in Corvil v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 300 at paragraph 13:
… when the credibility of a refugee protection claimant is at the heart of the RPD’s decision and the grounds for appeal before the RAD, the RAD is entitled to make independent findings in this regard, without having to question the applicant or giving the applicant another opportunity to make submissions.
[18] Similarly, an applicant cannot raise an argument and then complain that the RAD is responding to it. For example, if the applicant draws the RAD’s attention to certain documents, the RAD may assess their credibility: Ahmad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 14; He v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 744. The same rule applies when the applicant submits new evidence to the RAD: Uddin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 117.
[23] Accordingly, I do not agree that the Applicants were denied procedural fairness because the RAD assessed and made a credibility finding with respect to the NOA. Credibility was the sole issue raised before the RAD and the NOA was in the RPD record.
[24] Further, the record does not support the Applicants’ assertion that the RAD repeated the same error that the Applicants identified with respect to the RAD’s first decision.
[25] In the judgment on consent pertaining to the judicial review of the RAD’s first decision, the parties agreed that the RAD erred in its assessment of the Principal Applicant’s NOA:
AND UPON noting the parties’ agreement that the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it, in particular that the RAD erred in its assessment of the Applicant’s Notice of Arrest;
[26] I agree with the Respondent that the consent judgement does not indicate that there was a denial of natural justice in the first RAD hearing and decision. Rather, the identified and agreed error was a finding of fact in its assessment of the NOA. On that point, I also note that the RAD’s first decision did include an analysis of the NOA. Thus, the reason that the matter was sent back for redetermination was not for a breach of procedural fairness which has been repeated by the RAD in the decision under review.
[27] Similar to Justice Ahmed’s finding in Han v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1390, and unlike Fu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1074 which is relied upon by the Applicants, here, the issue of authenticity of the NOA is not a pivotal new matter requiring notice to the Applicants (Han at paras 29-33).
[28] In my view, it was not a breach of procedural fairness for the RAD, on redetermination, to examine the NOA and conclude that it impacted the Applicants’ credibility. The RAD can independently assess documentary evidence and make credibility findings (Akram v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 785 at paras 18-20).
[29] Further, the Applicants were aware that credibility was at issue and that the NOA and its authenticity had been considered by the RAD in its first decision and, in all likelihood, would again be considered by the RAD on redetermination. I do not accept the Applicants’ submission that they did not address the authenticity of the NOA in their appeal because they had no reason to believe it was necessary.
Was the RAD’s decision reasonable?
Applicants’ position
[30] The Applicants submit that the RAD’s finding that the NOA was fraudulent based on a comparison of a sample notice of arrest found in the National Documentation Package [NDP] was substantively unreasonable. Further, and in the alternative, that the RAD’s decision is based on credibility findings that do not meet the threshold of reasonableness. Specifically, with respect to findings regarding the Principal Applicant’s first church attendance, religious knowledge, and the new evidence submitted.
Respondent’s position
[31] The Respondent submits that the RAD conducted a coherent, rational and independent review of the RPD’s findings and reasonably came to the same conclusion. The RAD’s finding that the Applicants failed to establish their claim with sufficient credible evidence was reasonable. It was reasonable for the RAD to find that: the NOA was inauthentic; the Summons was inauthentic; there were inconsistencies regarding when and how the Principal Applicant joined Christianity; the Principal Applicant did not demonstrate religious knowledge; and, that the new evidence did not credibly establish the Applicants’ claim.
Analysis
[32] The written submissions of both parties focus on four of the RAD’s findings. I will address each in turn.
i. Authenticity of PBS documents
[33] In the RAD’s redetermination decision, its analysis begins by recognizing the lack of proper assessment of the Summons and the NOA in the RAD’s previous decision:
[22] The Appellants are correct that the summons and the Notice of Arrest or NOA that was issued to Baoming’s family were not properly assessed. These documents if genuine are prima facie proof of their allegations. I can remedy this on appeal by assessing the documents.
[34] The RAD goes on to conduct its own analysis and determines that the NOA is not authentic based on issues on the document’s face. This analysis considers the objective country documentation (a Response to Information Request, China: Format of notices of detention and notices of arrest, including signatures, letterhead and conformation contained in documents, dated October 7, 2021 and found in the May 21, 2022 NDP [RIR]) which specifies that notices of detention and arrest are uniform in appearance; the same format and appearance is used country wide; and, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security has not issued new forms since 2013. The RAD notes that there are three parts to the NOA as per the sample: the counterfoil; the copy kept on record; and the copy given to a family member of the person under arrest. The copy provided by the Applicants is alleged to be the one given to family members, however, the information provided therein does not match the information found on this document in the sample. The decision goes on to outline the specific discrepancies between the sample and the NOA provided including: missing addressee information; divergence of text and formatting; information about family members that should not be included; and, missing detention centre field. The RAD states that “[c]ase law indicates that, where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the document, whether because of an irregularity on the face or the questionable circumstances in which it was obtained or provided, the document may be assigned little or no weight”
, citing “
Grozdev, Kostadin Nikolov v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1332-91), Richard, July 16, 1996.”
[35] Based on this assessment, the RAD found the NOA to be fraudulent.
[36] As I have previously stated in Zhuang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 263:
[17] Inconsistencies on the face of a document provided by an applicant, identified by comparison to sample documents contained in the NDP, may provide grounds, in whole or in part, to conclude that a submitted document is not genuine (see Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 668 at paras 44-47 [Wang]) and the RAD is owed deference in its assessment of such documents (Liu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 736 at para 20(c) [Liu]). …
(see also Yin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 564 at para 15; Gong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 163 [Gong] at para 38).
[37] The Applicants submit that, while the NOA was not identical to the sample, it was “substantially similar”
in both form and content and that such differences are acknowledged in the RIR. When appearing before me, counsel for the Applicants argued that the RAD erred by interpreting the RIR to require the NOA to be identical to the sample.
[38] However, the RIR states as follows:
1.3 Uniformity and Variability in Notices of Detention and of Arrest
According to the Senior Lecturer, notices of detention and of arrest are "[u]niform" in appearance (Senior Lecturer 11 Aug. 2021). The Senior Research Fellow, however, stated that notices of detention and of arrest "are standard, but may have yearly variation, slight variations in formatting, or vary in where the official seal is placed" (Senior Research Fellow 19 Aug. 2021). The Visiting Professor indicated that "[b]oth are uniform across the country," and that "[r]egardless of location, they are almost the same thing" (Visiting Professor 6 Aug. 2021). The same source stated that "[t]he wording in these forms is nearly identical across provinces" (Visiting Professor 6 Aug. 2021). In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, a China researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that "[f]or both documents, the same format and appearance is used across the country, though there may be some small differences for different locations" (HRW 17 Aug. 2021). ….
[39] Read in whole, the RIR suggests that notices of arrest can be expected to vary very little. I do not agree with the Applicants that the RAD misinterpreted the RIR to require exact conformity with the sample. The RAD’s comparison identified more than slight variations in formatting. Further, “[i]t was open to the RAD to question the authenticity of the applicants’ summons based on differences – even small ones – between it and an authentic counterpart”
(Gong at para 38).
[40] In my view, the RAD reasonably concluded that the NOA was fraudulent.
[41] Having found the NOA not to be genuine, the RAD went on to find that it could afford no weight to the Summons because it was issued by the same organization, the PSB, and in relation to the same events. I agree with the Respondent that this was a reasonable determination. As recognized by the RAD, the submission of a fraudulent document can have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents, especially when they are interrelated, and on the overall credibility of the applicant (Jiang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 572 at paras 39-40).
ii. Inconsistencies in church attendance
[42] The Applicants submit that the RAD’s finding that the Principal Applicant gave inconsistent testimony with respect to when he started attending church is not supported by the record. The Principal Applicant explained his inconsistent answers regarding the first time he attended church when the inconsistency was put to him.
[43] In my view, this submission is of no merit. The RAD explicitly accepted that the Principal Applicant may have misunderstood the question put to him to be about when he first attended church in Canada. However, the RAD’s concerns remained with his evidence about why he joined the Christian faith and when he began attending underground church in China. I do not agree with the submission by the Applicants, made when appearing before me, that these are the same questions as the one acknowledged to have been misunderstood. The RAD states as follows:
[38] I accept that he may have misunderstood the question about the first time he was attending church and believed that he was being asked about church in Canada given he had just discussed circumstances in Canada. However, I find that this still does not explain why he answered the initial question about why he joined Christianity as he did. That question was not ambiguous or vague and the panel did not say anything about Canada when that question was raised. The topic of Canada only came up in the PA’s response. It is reasonable to expect that the PA would testify consistently about what motivated him to become a Christian and according to his narrative, these are events that happened in China. Whereas he testified only about what happened in Canada. It is not microscopic to expect that his testimony would match the evidence that was found in his BOC narrative in this regard.
[39] Moreover, such a misunderstanding, does not adequately account for why he went on to say in his explanation that he started church in China in 2015, which as the RPD pointed out also contradicts what he said in his narrative about first attending church in China in 2018. I find that his testimony in this regard was not credible. It is reasonable to expect that he would recall and convey when and how he discovered his faith consistently and these inconsistencies establish that the PA lacks credibility.
[44] The Applicants do not take issue with those findings.
iii. Religious knowledge
[45] The RAD agreed with the RPD that the Principal Applicant did not display a level of religious knowledge commensurate with that of someone who was genuinely practicing Christianity for over three years.
[46] In their written submissions, the Applicants submit that there is a very low bar on refugee claimants to demonstrate religious knowledge as a requirement for proving religious identity. A decision-maker must be particularly cautious where the applicant was raised in a country where the Christian faith is not part of the social fabric (citing Bai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1406; Huang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 346). Further, that there is a difference between the genuineness of beliefs and the theological accuracy of beliefs (citing Gao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1139 [Gao 2015] at para 26). The Applicants submitted that the RAD erroneously focused on the level of the Principal Applicant’s religious knowledge rather than the sincerity of his belief. This was unreasonable, particularly given he only has middle school education and did demonstrate some religious knowledge. Oral arguments were not made on this issue.
[47] The Respondent submits that the RAD’s findings on the level of religious knowledge displayed by the Principal Applicant were reasonable based on the record before it and are supported by the jurisprudence of this Court. The RAD is entitled to assess the Applicants’ knowledge of their religion in an effort to gauge beliefs and allegations (citing Guni v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 750 [Guni] at para 9; Siline v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 490; Bouarif v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 49 at para 10; Gao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 490 at para 22; Gao 2015 at para 26; Li v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1273 at para 15).
[48] In my view, the RAD reasonably found that despite allegedly: practicing Christianity since 2018; attending church once or twice a week since arriving in Canada in 2019; reading the Bible for ten minutes a day; and, becoming baptized in Canada which required attending Sunday classes for over a year, the Principal Applicant displayed vague and superficial knowledge of Christianity.
[49] This is relevant because the Applicants are claiming a fear of persecution based on religion. As Justice Grammond held in Guni:
[9] Nevertheless,
there are some categories of cases in which the claimant’s religious knowledge is relevant. Where claimants assert that they fear persecution because they converted to a particular religion, this Court has consistently held that it is permissible for the RPD to question them to ensure that their knowledge of their new religion corresponds to what can be reasonably expected in the circumstances: Hou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 993, [2014] 1 FCR 405; Li v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1273; Bouarif v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 49; Gao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 490; Siline v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 490 [Siline]. In the normal course of things, someone who converts to a new religion does so after having inquired about the fundamental characteristics of that religion. Conversion is usually followed by a process of further learning. It would be surprising if a convert were unable to show some knowledge of their religion.
[10] This underscores an important element: in those circumstances, the claimant’s religious knowledge is relevant because it sheds light on the claimant’s credibility. It is not a component of the definition of refugee status. Rather, a convert who does not have
a minimal degree of knowledge of their new religion is unlikely to be a credible witness. Stated differently, “there is a logical correlation between the depth of religious knowledge and the credibility of a claim of persecution”: Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 346 at paragraph 9 [Wang (2012)]. More precisely, a finding that a claimant lacks basic knowledge of their asserted religion is an implausibility finding: Zhang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 503 at paragraph 18.
[50] The RAD’s reasons demonstrate that the questions put to the Principal Applicant were not difficult, however, that he was able to provide only rudimentary information about the Christian faith. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the RAD to conclude that he did not display a level of knowledge commensurate with that of someone who was genuinely practicing Christianity for over three years and that the Principal Applicant’s testimony did not establish his alleged profile as a genuine Christian (Hu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 828 [Hu] at paras 28-29).
iv. New evidence
[51] The RAD admitted the six items of new evidence submitted by the Applicants:
-
-a letter from the Applicants’ son dated January 3, 2023, with two photos sent to corroborate the events in the letter;
-
-an affidavit from the Principal Applicant dated January 18, 2023;
-
-missing pages from the Applicants’ son’s hukou submitted on July 6, 2023;
-
-another letter from their son dated September 12, 2024;
-
-photos from the Jesus in Toronto parade dated September 7, 2024; and
-
-a further affidavit from the Principal Applicant dated September 16, 2024.
[52] However, the RAD found that no weight could be given to the letter from the Applicants’ son dated January 3, 2023, or the photos that accompanied the letter. And, although the Applicants’ testimony at the hearing before the first RAD was consistent with the new evidence, the testimony did not overcome the significant credibility issues that existed within the case as a whole. Further, as it had already found that the Applicants were generally lacking in credibility, the RAD gave no weight to their additional testimony, including the new allegation that they had been reported to the Chinese authorities for proselytizing in Canada. The RAD considered the new evidence intended to establish this but found it not to be credible. In making this determination, the RAD analyzed the evidence and considered the plausibility of the submissions. It concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the events described did not occur as alleged as they were outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected in the circumstances. The RAD afforded no weight to the letter in establishing the allegation that the Chinese authorities are looking for the Applicants.
[53] The RAD similarly found that the September 12, 2024, letter from the Applicants’ son was also insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns already set out.
[54] Finally, the RAD found that while the photos at the Jesus in Toronto parade show the Applicants at the event, there was no evidence that the activity came to the attention of the Chinese authorities. And, even if they did participate, the RAD noted that it had already concluded that they are not genuine Christians. They likely affiliated themselves with this religion to advance a refugee claim.
[55] In their written submissions, the Applicants argue that the RAD erred in making findings premised on the RAD’s previous adverse credibility findings, that the sur place analysis was unfairly corrupted by its previous untenable findings (citing Liu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 972) and, that the RAD erred in making assumptions about how local Chinese authorities would plausibly behave. This was not further addressed in the hearing before me.
[56] The Respondent submits that the RAD is entitled to draw negative credibility findings based on implausibilities, irrationality or a lack of common sense and can reject evidence that is internally inconsistent, or improbable given the context of the case as a whole (Lawani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924 at para 26). Additionally, that adverse conclusions on an applicant’s credibility can be drawn based on the use of fraudulent documents (Dai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 723 at para 30). And that the RAD can assess an applicant’s sur place claim in light of any credibility concerns regarding the original claim (Gong at para 52; Hu at para 34).
[57] I agree with the Respondent.
[58] This case is very similar to that of Hu in which Justice Zinn found:
[34] The RAD correctly noted that the letter merely confirms the Applicant’s attendance at church and other religious activities. While the RAD did state, at the end of paragraph 41 of its reasons, that the letter was not probative of the Applicant’s religious identity, I view this statement as being analogous to the sentence that follows, regarding the photograph: “The RPD was correct in its finding that the photo has insufficient probative value in establishing that the [Applicant’s] church activities in Canada flow from a genuine commitment to his faith.” I do not consider it unreasonable for the RAD to have found these documents inadequate to demonstrate the genuineness of the Applicant’s religious convictions. They are probative of his religious identity to some degree, in that attendance at church services and events lends some credence to the Applicant’s assertion that he is Christian. However, his testimony led the RAD to doubt the genuineness of his faith, as explained above. The RAD is entitled to import concerns about an applicant’s credibility and genuineness into the evaluation of a sur place claim (see Jiang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1067 at paras 27–28). It was open to the RAD to find the letter insufficiently probative of a genuine commitment to Christianity to overcome the negative credibility findings, which caused the sur place claim to fail.
[59] Similarly here, in my view, it was reasonable for the RAD to find that the new evidence submitted was insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns already set out.
Conclusion
[60] For the reasons above, I find that the Applicants have not met their onus of demonstrating that the RAD’s decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair. Accordingly, I am dismissing this application for judicial review. 
Email this Content