Facts: Claimant is a Christian and sought protection because of religious persecution in China. The panel accepted the claimant was a genuine Christian but did not accept that he was being sought by the police in China. The panel’s finding in this regard was based upon its finding that the summons tendered by the claimant was not genuine.
The panel reviewed a document from 2004 in its assessment of the summons and found that the panel was relying on “common sense” in determining that the summons was not reliable.
The Court was not satisfied with the Board’s treatment of the summons and as a result the Judicial Review was allowed.