Application allowed. The Board’s finding that the claimant’s story was “too fortuitous to be true” was not reasonable The fact that a summons was not left for the claimant was corroborated by the documentation which indicates that the practice of issuing summons is inconsistent. The Board’s finding that the claimant could practise at a state sanctioned […]

Panel determined the applicant was not a Convention Refugee because she could return to China and practise her religion a state church without any doctrinal constraint on the practice as a genuine Christian.

he Board’s found that the applicant had a good grasp of Christianity but did not appear to have an emotional commitment to the religion.

The Board’s found that the applicant had a good grasp of Christianity but did not appear to have an emotional commitment to the religion.

The panel found that the claimant’s fear of religious persecution was not credible in light of the lack of objective documentation corroborating that church raids in China occur.  The Court overturned the panel’s decision because the panel failed to make a clear finding of fact that the claimant’s house church was not raided.

 Panel determined the case negative in a bench decision.