2219303 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4675 (7 December 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Amelia Faraone
CASE NUMBER: 2219303
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: China
MEMBER:Peter Vlahos
DATE:7 December 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
This Statement was made on 7th Decenber 2023 at 8.00AM
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – Federal Circuit Court remittal – religion – Church of Almighty God – member with family from young age – partner arrested and applicant questioned – internal relocation through church network – understanding of teachings, and activities in China and Australia – social media activity in Australia – supporting statements – country information – state oversight of religion and persecution of those which do not conform – secret meetings and use of pseudonyms – fear of perscution well-founded – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Chand v MIEA [1997] FCA 1198Iyer v MIMA [2000] FCA 52; Iyer v MIMA [2000] FCA 1788
MIEA v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 220
MIEA v Wu Shan Lian (1996) 185 CLR 259
MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
SAAD v MIMA [2003] FCAFC 65
Sivalingam v MIMA [1999] FCA 76; [1998] FCA 1167
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 24 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 11 November 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that it did not satisfy sub-section 36(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal (differently constituted)[1] affirmed the delegate’s decision, and that decision was set aside by the Federal Circuit Court. The matter is now before the Tribunal pursuant to an order of the Court.
[1] AAT File no. 1728081
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 November 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received written evidence in the form of statutory declarations from [Ms A] and [Mr B].
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of applicant. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Country of origins and identity
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that any of the documents provided to the Tribunal is a bogus document as defined in section 5(1) of the Act.
Further, based on a copy of the applicant’s passport, which was provided to the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) and the Tribunal on file, and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of the Peoples’ Republic of China (or ‘PRC’) and has had her claims assessed against that country in relation to section 36(2)(a) and section 36(2)(aa) of the Act and on the basis of this evidence (currently, before the Tribunal), the Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant’s identity as is claimed for the purposes of this decision.
Protection available in another country assessed
The Tribunal finds, on the evidence before it, that the applicant does not have a right to enter or to reside in a country other than China. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes and finds that section 36(3) of the Act does not apply to the applicant.
Department File accessed by the Tribunal
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant. The Tribunal also has had regard to the material referred to in the delegate’s decision record. The applicant provided a ‘copy’ of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal with her application to review.
Background – the Applicant’s migration and visa history
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] August 2016 as the holder of a subclass FA-600 (Tourist visa) and on 11 November 2016 he applied for a subclass XA-866 (Protection) visa which was refused by the Department and the subject of this review but was granted the associated Bridging visa.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Background – Applicant’s Personal details
The applicant was born in [Village], Huo Zhou City in Shan Xi Province China on [Date] and is [Age]-years-of-age. He is of the Han nationality and is a Christian and a member of the ‘Church of Almighty God. The applicant said that he ‘grew up’ in Shan Xi Province with his parents and two [siblings] – a sister and a brother. The applicant is the ‘[birth order] child of the family.’ His father ‘worked as [an Occupation]’ which was located in close proximity to the family home and his mother was a dedicated housewife charged with the running of the household. The applicant’s sister is married and has one child. She resides in the ‘same area’ where all siblings were born. The applicant’s [brother] is still not married. He – the [brother] – left home to seek work and according to the applicant ‘is working’ in the Tai Yuan City which is situated in applicant ‘s home Province, Shan Xi. All members of the applicant’s family are (according to the applicant’s evidence) are practicing members of the ‘Church of Almighty God’. The applicant told the Tribunal, that he has not ‘had any communication’ with his family since he ‘left China’ [in] August 2016 because the applicant ‘fears that any communication will be intercepted by the Chinese authorities’ and the applicant ‘did not wish to put (his family) them at risk.’[2]
Applicant’s claims for Protection[3]
[2] see: also _ Applicant’s Statutory Declaration_ dated 13 June 2021 at p.1
[3] Department of Home Affairs File no. [Reference]
The Tribunal noted that the applicant made the following written claims in her application for Protection visa which were submitted to the Department and noted in summary form here, as follows:
§The Applicant is a devoted Christian in the ‘Church of Almighty God’
§In May 2014, when the applicant gathered at [Ms C] sister’s home, she was warned by [Ms C] sister’s son that if she not from the same village he would report her to [the] Public Security Bureau of China;
§At another time, the applicant went to [Ms C] sister’s house, neighbours saw her and told [Ms C] sister’s son. He was going to report her to [the] Public Security Bureau, but she escaped with the help of [Ms C];
§In February 2016, her partner, [Mr D] brother, was arrested. From CCTV footage, police knew that she and [Mr D] brother passed in and out together. She now fears arrest if she returns to China;
§In May 2015, police confiscated her computer, but did not find anything about her religion. They warned her that if they find evidence of her faith in God, they will arrest her;
§The applicant had to seek for help to her brothers and sister (in faith) for accommodation support;
§The applicant thinks if returned to China, she will be arrested by police and taken into jail because of religious belief. She moved places in May 2014, May 2015 and February 2016. The applicant claims moving places will not prevent Chinese authorities from searching for an her;
§The applicant does not think the authorities will protect her. She claims, ,many brothers and sisters (in faith) were arrested and tortured by Chinese Government. Chinese Government issued a document to arrest people who believe in God.
The Tribunal also noted that on 3 October 2016, the applicant attended a Protection visa interview at the office of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. At the interview, the applicant advanced the following additions and amendments to her original claims:
§The applicant cannot continue with her religious belief in China. Chinese Government has fabricated an evidence, called 528, under which Christians are framed and persecuted. Chinese military forces attack those who believe in Christianity;
§‘Almighty God’ is the religious belief. It is the same as Christian belief that Jesus became human with flesh and blood. Christianity is based on Bible whereas ‘Almighty God’ is based on “Words that are revealed in flesh”;
§There is no leader in the Church of Almighty God. They only have their Almighty God. There is no hierarchy in God’s family. Almighty God is the leader who is running the churches;
§She did not hold leadership position in her church in China. She nourished the newcomers by reading the three books to them about what God has done in those three times; and make people understand that man are made by God;
§She does not view the Church of Almighty God as a Christian denomination.
As part of her case being considered by the Tribunal, the applicant and her legal counsel provided the following materials as support of her claims:
§Legal submissions in support of AAT case no. 1728081 dated 15 June 2021 and 28 June 2021;
§Letter from [Mr B], dated 02 November 2023;
§Statutory Declaration of [the applicant] dated 21 November 202; and
§Statutory Declaration of [Ms A] on 21 November 2023.
The applicant’s legal counsel brought to the Tribunal’s attention in her submission to the Tribunal dated 21 November 2023[4] that she will rely on her legal submissions dated 15 June 2021 and 28 June 2021 which were submitted in support of the applicant’s previous hearing (with the previous AAT) and continue to rely on the statutory declarations submitted in support of the applicant’s claims considered by the previous Tribunal, namely:
§Statutory Declaration of [the applicant] dated 15 June 2021;
§Statutory Declaration of [named person] dated 15 June 2021;
§Statutory Declaration of [named person] dated 25 June 2021; and
§Statutory Declaration of [named person] dated 26 June 2021.
[4] see, AAT File. (no. 2219303).
The Tribunal read (with the assistance of the interpreter) the applicant’s claims as provided to the Department and asked the applicant if there were anything else, he wished the Tribunal to consider not already raised or recorded in the documents before the Tribunal. The applicant response was that there was “nothing more to add.”
The Tribunal was told that the applicant arrived in Australia [in] August 2016 as the holder of a Tourist visa which was valid for ‘three months.’
The applicant said that she has family in China which consists of her elderly parents and her [sister and brother].
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – whether her parents held any positions of ‘any’ authority within his Church and the applicant’s response was that neither of her parents held a position in the Church. They were of the faith and content in being “normal members.”
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal to explain (in her own words and understanding) – what (she understood) the ‘Church of the Almighty God’ all about? The applicant’s response was as follows:
“There are three ages: First, there is the ‘ending age’; the second, is (what the applicant described as) ‘the Law’ and the third: the ‘age of the Law’ and ‘Kingdom-the ending of the age”
The Tribunal asked the applicant does the religion the ‘Church of the Almighty God’ refer for religious instruction to a particular ‘holy book’ or type – ‘Bible’ that is particular to the applicant’s religion and beliefs? The applicant’s response was:
“We have (referring to book in front of her) the ‘Sacred Book of the Kingdom Age’” (applicant’s reference and description).
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – who was the religion’s founder or who was responsible for the establishment of the religion? The applicant’s response was as follows:
“…the age of grace and the age of the Kingdom and the age of the law…”
According to the applicant (through the interpreter) the religion’s main belief was the ‘age of grace and the age of the Kingdom and the Age of law.” All, according to the applicant, were “created by God…” and went on to say “God created all living things on earth…” The holy book (which is three books in one) according to the applicant, makes a ‘believer’ ‘to understand’ the “mysteries of the human body” which is a creation of ‘God Almighty’.
The applicant also made reference to the “mysteries” of “the Bible” and described them as “God created all life on earth…” or what the applicant described as the “age of grace”.
The applicant told the Tribunal that the “three books in one volume” is the “belief” – the “three ages” that are “described in the one book.”
The Tribunal asked the applicant – did she, and her family practise the religion of ‘Almighty God’ in China and how? The applicant’s response was that he and his family “practised their religion’s beliefs at their home, or at the homes of other brothers’ and sisters’ homes.” The applicant also told the Tribunal, that at meetings which she attended, “hymns would be sung but in very low voice” and the “gathered” would read the Holy book and discuss the day’s chosen reading.
The Tribunal asked the applicant – when did you first join the religion? The applicant’s response was, “December 2012…”
The Tribunal asked the applicant – what did you do in order to become a member of this religion? Her response was, “…believe in almighty God” and went on to say, “…those who listen to God’s words …must only believe in one God…” The applicant said that a pre-condition of her religion’s belief is that undertakes an “affirmation in [there being only] one God…”
The applicant said that the practise of her religion is “reading, and discussing scripture and singing hymns…” but the ‘singing of hymns’ was very difficult in China because it had to be done in a very ‘low voice’ not to arouse suspicions by neighbours (non-believers) who would contact the authorities and cause problems.
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – why her friend’s son (…) did not like her and constantly threatened her – that he would ‘report her to the authorities’? The applicant’s response was as follows:
“China…is a country [full of] atheists and [Ms C]’s son was afraid that if people saw people coming to [his] mother’s house, they would report this to the local authorities…”
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – were you reported to the authorities by [Ms C]’s son? The applicant’s response was ‘no’ but she ‘always had the fear’ that he (the son) would report her to the authorities. The applicant was never sure that would not happen, even after she lessened her visits to her friend’s home.
The applicant was asked to explain the significance of the arrest of brother [Mr D] in February 2016. The applicant said that both she and brother [Mr D] attended certain meeting of the religion in a local house and because of the attendance at such a meeting brother [Mr D] was “observed on CCTV cameras” and was arrested. The applicant provided no explanation in any detail as to why brother [Mr D] was arrested but the Tribunal was told that “it was because he was a member of the ‘All-Mighty God’ group and the authorities do not tolerate this group of believers in God.
After 2016, the applicant told the Tribunal, that she continuously change residential addresses because the authorities were instigating a major crackdown of the followers of ‘All Mighty God.’ In order to avoid any questioning from the authorities, the applicant told the Tribunal that she “moved places in May 2014, May 2015 and February 2015”. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal to explain as ‘to how’ she was able to move places of residence ‘without the authorities’ finding her actual whereabouts. The explanation provided by the applicant to the Tribunal was that she “…used a fake name…”
The applicant was asked about the incident she claimed which occurred in May 2015, when the authorities (the police) confiscated her computer. The applicant’s was that the “police were trying to arrest (a suspected) gathering of person attending a gambling venue” and she was at this gathering and ‘her computer was seized by the police’ taken away and ‘checked by them’ and after finding no information that was of interest ‘to the police’, the “computer was returned” to the applicant. The applicant told the Tribunal that “…I do not know (why) but I felt scared about my computer being checked by the police.”
The applicant went on to explain to the Tribunal that the police raid in 2015 was an attempt by the authorities to uncover the activities of the Almighty God group. Their intention, according to the applicant was ‘not to find gamblers’ but to ‘discover church/religion’ members.
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal, while in Australia, how has she followed and practised her religious beliefs? The applicant (overcome with emotion) told the Tribunal that in Australia, she had no problems or fears in displaying her beliefs or in engaging openly with other followers of the Almighty God group. The said that (in Australia) “she was free to read the Book” and “free to access the religion’s (on-line) material via a computer” and “often when required by her (seeking some particular religious instruction) on the APP on her mobile phone.” The applicant also spoke about having regular meetings “with other brothers and sisters” “every Thursday” at the Almighty God premises[5] or on-line.
[5] see, AAT File_ support letter_ from Bro/Sr [Mr B], dated 2 November 2023
The Tribunal was also told by the applicant that she often would “evangelise” on-line to other’s on-line wishing to share with her their religious beliefs and experiences and often discussed the three Books and the meanings of certain parts of the scriptures. The means or conduit for the applicant’s evangelising in public, the Tribunal was told was undertaken through her own [Social media] site platform. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she had any hardcopy evidence of her evangelising available for the Tribunal to observe and to evaluate. The applicant presented her mobile phone which displayed a [Social media] account with the applicant’s photo. However, the Tribunal considered it proper for the applicant to prepare copies of her evangelising on-line (with interpretation in English) and to submit it the Tribunal for its consideration. The applicant’s legal counsel undertook this evidence will be provided, seven days after the scheduled hearing (close of business).
The applicant told the Tribunal that her times for ‘evangelising others’ was between 7.30pm and 10.30pm each day. According to the applicant she engages with others on various topics for example, why does God have judgement? What is God’s judgement mean for us? The applicant said that currently on her group’s behalf, she has been evangelising with people on-line who live in [Country]. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain – how she spoke to her people in [Country] when she had limited language skills. Her response to the Tribunal was that she would receive questions and queries on-line and through the use of Google Translate she would provide the answer in the understood language to her gathered on-line brethren in [Country] (either in [their language] or English).
The Tribunal asked the applicant, if she was to return to China could she continue as she had been doing in Australia (as far as it concerns her religious beliefs). The applicant (overcome with emotion) told the Tribunal that what was possible in Australia was not to be the case in China. The applicant described China as a country where religious belief and religious opinions which do not follow the edicts and policies of the Chinese State are monitored and those proposing them – questioned and placed in confinement. The applicant said that she could not restrain herself if returned to China from actively pursuing her religious beliefs as she had done so in Australia.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she has been in Australia for eight years and many things have changed in China and religious intolerance (by the Chinese state) has increased dramatically in recent years.
The applicant concluded her remarks by reminding the Tribunal that what she has done and is currently doing will lead to her arrest and indefinite detention if she was returned to China.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEGAL COUNSEL ON APPLICANT’S BEHALF
The applicant’s legal Counsel (Ms Amelia Faraone)[6] submitted to the Tribunal two submissions one prepared for the previous Tribunal by Virajith Hewaarachchi, Solicitor dated 28 June 2021 and her own dated the 21 November 2023. Ms Faraone told the Tribunal that both submissions were relevant and to point on all matters discussed between the Tribunal and the applicant in the current hearing. Also, Ms Faraone drew the Tribunal’s attention to all statutory declarations and letters in support provided to the previous Tribunal and to the current Tribunal which were relevant to the issues currently before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted all past and current submissions and evidence as relevant and as requiring the Tribunal’s consideration in reaching its conclusions in this matter’s current review.
COUNTRY INFORMATION _ PEOPLES’ REPUBLIC OF CHINA_CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD_ RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE ONE’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS_ AND THE CHINESE STATE
[6] From Refugee & Immigration Legal Centre Inc, Level 6, 20 Otter Street, Collingwood Vic 3066.
According to the available country information[7] “mainstream” religions in China constitute what is academically referred to as the ‘red market’ of religions. The ‘red market’ refers to religious denominations that are recognized by the Chinese Communist Party as (state considered) legitimate. They are permitted to practice and operate only under strict regulation and control by the CCP. Any religion that operates without the positive approval and recognition and regulation of the CCP, is deemed a ‘black’ religion or “xie jiao”. A recent country information report prepared by the Dutch Foreign Ministry in 2020 explains the legal distinction between ‘red’ and ‘black’ religions:
“China’s religious landscape is categorised into three markets, namely a ‘red’, a ‘black’ and ‘grey’ market. The ‘red’ market refers to religious communities recognised by the CCP and under Party control. In this context, the colour ‘red’ refers to the colour of the CCP’s communist ideology. The ‘black’ market refers to religious and spiritual movements that have been regarded as a xie jiao by the Chinese authorities.”[8]
[7] Country of Origin Information Reports Section at The Hague, ‘Country of Origin Information Report, China’ (July 2020) file://rilcts16/redirected$/intern13/Downloads/COI+Report+China%20(1).pdf, [6.1].
[8] Ibid.
As a result, “mainstream”, or ‘red’, Christianity is only represented by its two major denominations – Catholicism and Protestantism (which has a further two recognised denominations within it). Thus, anyone belonging to a Christian denomination other than Catholicism, or the two prescribed branches of Protestantism has no authorised church to attend.
“The Chinese authorities recognise five religions in total: Buddhism, Catholicism, Taoism, Islam and Protestantism. Each of these religions has its own Patriotic Religious Association (PRA). A PRA is a state-led coordinating entity responsible for monitoring the selection, education, further training and actions of members of the clergy of the religion concerned. Buddhists come under the Buddhist Association of China (BAC), Catholics under the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA), Taoists under the Chinese Taoist Association (CTA) and Muslims under the Islamic Association of China (IAC). There are only two PRAs for Protestants, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and the China Christian Council (CCC).”[9]
[9] Ibid.
As a result of strict state oversight and scrutiny, many view the Patriotic Religious Associations as mere extensions of the atheist government. As such, priests and worshipers do not feel the PRAs actually reflect the values and beliefs of the religion they purport to represent, but rather CCP propaganda. Speaking about the Catholic PRA, a priest from Zhengding told magazine, Bitter Winter:
“Many of them have resisted because the association “is a group that completely and blindly follows the Party and whose political nature is extremely pronounced -it’s a political tool”, a priest from Zhengding diocese, in China’s northern Hebei province, told the magazine.”[10]
[10] “Police in China Given Quotas for How Many Christians to Arrest” World Watch Media (online) 6 December 2018
There are many Christian or quasi-Christian sects in China that do not conform to the religious interpretations for the Christian PRAs. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also identify as Christians, are persecuted in China for not conforming to the prescribed, regulated form of worship under the Chinese Patriotic Association or the Patriotic Religious Associations for Protestants.
“ChinaAid reported that eighteen Jehovah’s Witnesses were charged by the Chinese authorities in June 2019 for engaging in proselytising activities in Xinjiang, a province in northwest China that has traditionally had a strong Islamic character. According to the authorities, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were guilty of disseminating ‘superstition and heresy ‘, which is prohibited under Article 300.”[11]
[11] Country of Origin Information Reports Section at The Hague, ‘Country of Origin Information Report, China’ (July 2020) file://rilcts16/redirected$/intern13/Downloads/COI+Report+China%20(1).pdf, [6.2].
Similarly, followers of the Church of Almighty God, though self-identifying as Christians, hold beliefs that many mainstream Christians consider heretical. The Church of Almighty God is perhaps more accurately termed a “quasi-Christian” denomination, as they were described by the Council of Foreign Relations.[12] Despite having its roots in Protestantism, the doctrine and scripture of the Church of Almighty God has significant variations. For example, CAG followers believe that Jesus Christ has been reincarnated as a Chinese woman. As mainstream Christianity would regard such a belief as blasphemous, if not heretical, it is natural that CAG followers should not attend mainstream Christian churches in China.
“The CAG is a church that was established in 1989, with roots in Protestantism. CAG worshippers believers that Jesus Christ has incarnated as ‘Almighty God’ in a Chinese woman named Yang Xiangbin. Even though Jesus has returned in a woman’s body according to CAG worshippers, they refer to Almighty God as a male figure. Most CAG members are not aware that the woman in who Jesus has incarnated is Yang Xiangbin.”[13]
[12] ‘Religion in China’ Council of Foreign Relations (25 September 2020)
[13] Ibid see, footnote 11 above.
Furthermore, the Church of Almighty God propagates and worships by its own religious doctrine, contained in a scripture that roughly translates to ‘The Word Appears in the Flesh’. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada cited research in 2014, explaining that the followers of CAG consider the mainstream bible to be outdated and incomplete. Further, the CAG actually views mainstream Christianity, with its adherence to ancient texts, to be impediment to the true worship of Christ.
“In a 2005 article in the Christian Research Journal, published by the Christian Research Institute, the authors state that the Church of Almighty God believes that the Bible is out-of- date and that those who limit God’s revelation to just the Bible are like the Pharisees who held on the Old Testament and rejected Christ.”[14]
[14] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, China, Religious texts used by the Church of the Almighty God (Eastern Lightening) (14 October 2014)
The Canadian Tribunal then cites a study from the University of Melbourne to the same effect:
“Similarly, in a scholarly article on the Church of Almighty God, Emily C. Dunn, a scholar at the Asia Institute of the University of Melbourne, who wrote her doctoral dissertation on the group, states that “Eastern Lightning presents its teachings as fulfilling the prophesies of both Old and New Testaments, but also argues that overzealous adherence to the Bible and misrepresentations of it prevent Christians from accepting God’s new work”…” [15]
[15] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, China: Religious texts used by the Church of the Almighty God (Eastern Lightning)(14 October 2014)
It has been noted that in light of the considerable differences in CAG’s teachings to those of mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism, and the distrust of the Chinese government within the GAG membership, it is not a surprise that CAG followers do not attend legal Christian churches in China. In simple terms, it could be considered an entirely different religion. Followers of the CAG cannot (according to general opinion) be expected to modify or conceal their true beliefs simply to confirm to the demands of the Chinese Communist Party and State.
Also, the Department of Home Affairs issued recently (27 October 2023) a Country-of-Origin Information Services Section (COISS) Paper titled “Christians in China” which describes the state of religious belief and freedom of religion as follows:
China is officially an atheist state.[16] The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) provides for the freedom of religious belief including prohibition on compelling citizens to believe or not believe in any religion and discrimination against citizens due to their religious beliefs. However, the Constitution also limits protections to ‘normal religious activities,’ and prohibits the use of religious activities that ‘disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.’[17] These terms are not defined.[18] Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members and those in the armed forces are required to be atheist, and must not engage in religious practices.[19] Minors are not permitted to participate in religious activities or receive a religious education.[20]
[16] ‘United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2023', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 1 May 2023, p. 17, 20230502165921
[17] 'Constitution of the People's Republic of China (adopted December 4, 1982)', People's Daily (Renmin Ribao), Information Office of the State Council, People's Republic of China, 1 January 2004, Article 46, p. 7, CIS17722
[18] 'Constitution of the People's Republic of China (adopted December 4, 1982)', People's Daily (Renmin Ribao), Information Office of the State Council, People's Republic of China, 1 January 2004, CIS17722
[19] '2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, p. 10, 20230516091411
[20] The Regulations on Religious Affairs (the Regulations) as revised in 2017 and effective from 1 February 2018, heavily restricts religious education and practice for minors, ‘Regulations on Religious Affairs (2017 Revision)', State Council of the People's Republic of China, State Council of the People's Republic of China [English.gov.cn], 1 February 2019, 20190620101102; '2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, p. 14, 20230516091411
The PRC recognises five official religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism, and seven national religious organisations or patriotic associations: the Buddhist Association of China (BAC), the Chinese Taoist Association (CTA), the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) and Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC), the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and China Christian Council (CCC), and the Islamic Association of China (IAC).[21]
These officially recognised associations manage affairs for their respective religions in China, and are supervised by the CCP’s United Work Front Department (UWFD) and the government’s State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA).[22] According to the US Department of State, the CCP ‘is responsible for creating religious regulations and oversees the UFWD, which in turn manages the SARA’s functions and responsibilities,’ while ‘the SARA is responsible for implementing the CCP’s regulations on religious affairs and administers the provincial and local bureaus of religious affairs.’[23]
State-sanctioned religious associations are permitted to conduct religious activities within the regulations. The 2018 Regulations on Religious Affairs were a significant revision which enhanced government oversight of religious activities. Further religious regulations supplementing these reforms[24] include:
· The 2020 Administrative Measures for Religious Groups, which came into effect on 1 February 2020, stipulate that only registered religious groups may operate legally, and regulate ‘the organization, function, offices, supervision, projects, and economic administration of communities and groups at the national and local levels.’[25]
· The 2021 Administrative Measures for Religious Clergy came into effect on 1 May 2021 to restrict religious activities by clergy, and created a database of religious personnel. ‘Clergy cards’ are not issued to those from outside the state sanctioned organisations. These measures, in part, also require clergy to support the CCP and the socialist system, adhere to and promote sinicisation of religion, and resist illegal religious activities and foreign infiltration.[26]
· The 2022 Measures for the Administration of Internet Religious Information Services came into effect on 1 March 2022, 12 banning overseas organisations and individuals from operating ‘online religious information services’ within China. Chinese-based services are required to submit an application, and if approved, are issued a permit with which they can ‘preach religious doctrines online that are conducive to social harmony and civilization, and guide religious people to be patriotic to the country and abide by the law.’[27]
Further regular management of religious bodies include Measures for the Financial Management of Venues for Religious Activities came into effect on 1 June 2022, 14 and the 2023 Measures for the Administration of Places of Religious Activity came into effect on 1 September 2023.[28]
The regulation of religious groups in China is related to the ‘sinicisation’ of religions. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) describes the ‘renewed’ sinicisation campaign under Xi Jinping, and implemented through the UFWD, as aiming to ‘ensure a ‘correct’ version of religion is practised by adherents in China, with principles like patriotism, party leadership, and loyalty to the Party emphasised, and doctrine deemed inconsistent with Party supremacy de-emphasised or forbidden.’[29] According to the US Department of State, as recently as October 2022 Xi Jinping reiterated that the party would ‘remain committed to the principle that religions in China must be Chinese in orientation and provide active guidance to religions so that they can adapt to socialist society.’[30] Understandings of religious regulation in China have often drawn from sociologist Fenggang Yang’s 2006 classification of ‘red, black and grey markets’ of religion. Red religions are those ‘officially permitted’ by the state, black religions being ‘officially banned,’ and grey religions as those with ‘ambiguous legal/illegal status.’[31] It largely remains that some religious groups directly operate under the auspices of the state (patriotic associations), others operate outside of the regulatory structure although may do so relatively openly (such as Christian house churches)19 and a number of religious groups or organisations are illegal and banned (such as those classified xie jiao or ‘evil cults’).[32]
[21] 'State-Controlled Religion and Religious Freedom Violations in China', Mingzhi Chen, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 19 December 2022, p. 1, 20230105101952
[22] 'State-Controlled Religion and Religious Freedom Violations in China', Mingzhi Chen, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 19 December 2022, p. 1, 20230105101952
[23] ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, p. 8, 20230516091411
[24] Please consult the latest US Department of State Report on International Religious Freedom for detailed summaries of religious regulations and their implementation, for the 2022 report, please see pages 7 – 16, ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, 20230516091411
[25] '2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Macau)', US Department of State, 12 May 2021, p. 11, 20210513091414; 'The 2019 Regulation for Religious Groups in China', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), February 2020, 20200429140105; 'China announces new crackdown on religious freedom', Catholic Herald, 7 January 2020, 20200115094307; Full text translation: 'Measures for the Administration of Religious Groups', China Law Translate, 20 November 2019, 20200203142220
[26] 'China: Submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2023)', Amnesty International, 17 January 2023, p. 5, 20230118112321; ‘2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Macau)', ', United States Department of State, 2 June 2022, pp. 2 and 7, 20220603082906; 'China’s 2021 Measures on the Management of Religious Clergy', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), October 2021, 2023051516152; 'China began removing Bible apps but that was just the first step in a crackdown on religion', The Catholic Leader, 25 May 2021, 20210623142745; 'Enter the “Administrative Measures for Religious Clergy”: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid', Bitter Winter, 11 February 2021, 20230515160926.
[27]‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, p. 9, 20230516091411; 'Provinces across China work to implement internet restrictions', China Aid Association, 24 March 2022, 20220330153308.
[28] 'Religious leaders urged to enhance China’s ‘soft power’', UCA News (UCAN), 30 June 2023, 20230705095539; 'New regulations published in China to improve management of religious activity sites', Global Times, 1 August 2023, 20231010145210; ‘NEW MEASURES CONTINUE TO SUFFOCATE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN CHINA', China Aid Association, 10 August 2023, 20231010145343; ‘China steps up political control over religious venues, sermons and activities', Gao Feng, Radio Free Asia (RFA), 3 August 2023, 20231010145543.
[29] ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, pp. 2 – 3, 20230516091411
[30] 'The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion', The Sociological Quarterly, Vol 47, Fenggang Yang, 31 December 2006, p. 93, CISBE8E6BE682; see also, 'Atlas of Religion in China: Social and Geographical Contexts', Fenggang Yang, Brill, 4 September 2018, pp.27-28, 20190207150408. Please see recent mention by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘DFAT Country Information Report - People's Republic of China', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 21 December 2021, p. 16, 20211222100210
[31] ‘DFAT Country Information Report - People's Republic of China', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 21 December 2021, p. 16, 20211222100210; China: Treatment of members of house churches, including Protestant, Catholic, and other Christian house churches, by the authorities; the enforcement of the revised regulation on religious affairs in 2018; legal recourse (2019–October 2021)', Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), 17 October 2021, 20220110153145
[32] ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, pp. 1 and 10, 20230516091411; See, 'The Persecution of Unorthodox Religious Groups in China', Dui Hua Foundation, 29 March 2022, 20220407134713
Other sources concerning the current situation in China concerning the treatment of religion and religious belief by the authorities:
The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRBC) Research Directorate two US based university professors on 1 and 4 April 2022 respectively, a University of Edinburgh Lecturer on 1 April and 4 May 2022, and a research associate at a Hong Kong university on 22 March 2022, about a range of matters involving Christian members of patriotic associations.[33] The views expressed on the treatment of such members by the authorities varied:
The Professor indicated that there has been a "material change" for registered Christian churches since the 2018 regulations came into force (Professor 1 Apr. 2022)… The Professor of political science stated that the "pressure" on registered Christian churches "is increasing," with clerics and lay worshipers needing to "demonstrate their patriotism in tangible ways" (Professor of political science 4 Apr. 2022)…
The Lecturer, however, indicated that the 2018 regulations "[i]n many ways … have not had additional impacts" on registered churches, with exceptions such as regulations on online religious activities (Lecturer 1 Apr. 2022). The Lecturer stated that treatment of CCPA or TSPM churches is "reasonably good," in that authorities "tend not to interfere" in the "day-to- day running of churches and the lives of church leaders and members," provided they are not "deemed to be violating religious policy" (Lecturer 1 Apr. 2022).
The same source, however, added that treatment varies "across time and place" (Lecturer 1 Apr. 2022). The Research Associate noted that church members who comply with the regulations do not usually face "trouble" from authorities (Research Associate 22 Mar. 2022). The same source added that members who do not follow the regulations will face government intervention, but noted that such interventions used to be "arbitrary" whereas they are now guided by the regulations which clarifies the "red lines" (Research
[33] 'China: Treatment of members of Christian Patriotic Churches, including the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) [Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA)', Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 10 May 2022, 20220602123639
The Directorate also published responses from academic sources including those noted above and another from the Universite de Paris Cité regarding regional variations in the treatment of registered church members.[34] These include that churches operating on the south-eastern coastline[35] experience less restriction, although one expert stated Zhejiang province had ‘seen some of the most repressive actions against registered churches."’ Another expert responded that ‘with some exceptions’ churches in poorer or rural areas experience ‘harsher’ or ‘more difficult’ treatment from local authorities.[36]
[34] 'China: Treatment of members of Christian Patriotic Churches, including the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) [Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA)', Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 10 May 2022, Section 3.2, 20220602123639.
[35] Some responses specified particular provinces of Fujian, and ‘Jiangsu province southward to Guangdong,’ 'China: Treatment of members of Christian Patriotic Churches, including the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) [Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA)', Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 10 May 2022, Section 3.2, 20220602123639.
[36] 'China: Treatment of members of Christian Patriotic Churches, including the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) [Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA)', Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 10 May 2022, Section 3.2, 20220602123639.
The United States Department of State International Religious Freedom Report for China draws heavily from external sources in relation to the treatment of Christians, including reporting about specific incidents. The most recent report offers the following findings on the arrest and prosecution of religious leaders or members, and interference with religious activities, as relevant to Christians:
Authorities continued to arrest and otherwise detain leaders and members of religious groups, often those connected with groups not registered with the state-sanctioned religious associations. Authorities reportedly used vague or insubstantial charges, sometimes in connection with religious activity, to convict and sentence leaders and members of religious groups to years in prison. Due to the lack of transparency regarding law enforcement’s persecution of religious followers, estimates of those imprisoned during the year for their religious beliefs ranged from the low thousands to over 10,000.[37]
[…]
The government continued to close down or hinder the activities of religious groups not affiliated with the state-sanctioned religious associations, including unregistered Protestants, Catholics… At times, authorities said they shuttered a gathering because the group or its activities were unregistered; at other times, because the place of worship lacked necessary permits. Authorities allowed some unregistered groups to operate but did not recognize them legally. In some cases, authorities required unregistered religious groups to disband, leaving their congregants with the sole option of attending services under a state-sanctioned religious leader.[38]
[37] ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, p. 16, 20230516091411
[38] ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, pp. 26 – 27, 20230516091411
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which is a separate agency from the US Department of State,[39] have designated China as a ‘country of particular concern’ and its annual report provides their view on the situation for Catholics and Protestants in 2022:
… Across China, authorities detained or otherwise forcibly disappeared Catholic priests and bishops— including Bishop Joseph Zhang Weizhu and Bishop Augustine Cui Tai—who refused to join the state controlled Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.
Persecution of Protestant house church Christians also intensified in 2022. The government carried out a nationwide crackdown on house churches by harassing, detaining, physically abusing, and sentencing Protestants who refused to join the state-controlled Three-Self Patriotic Movement. Authorities targeted Reformed house church Christians, including Elder Zhang Chunlei of Ren’ai Reformed Church and Pastor An Yankui of Taiyuan Zion Reformed Church. Reports also emerged of harsh persecution of ethnic minority Protestants, such as Lisu and Nu Protestants in Yunan Province and Kyrgyz Protestants in Xinjiang re-education camps.[40]
[39] ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, pp. 26 – 27, 20230516091411
[40] ‘United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2023', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 1 May 2023, p. 16, 20230502165921
A December 2022 USCIRF factsheet provides broad commentary on ‘religious freedom violations’ in China, and notes that ‘state-sanctioned religious leaders who oppose, protest, or resist government policies run the risk of official reprisal,’ citing a high-profile arrest in 2017.[41]
[41] State-Controlled Religion and Religious Freedom Violations in China', Mingzhi Chen, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 19 December 2022, p. 3, 20230105101952
In a January 2023 submission to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Amnesty International mentioned reports of ‘crackdowns’ on house churches across China since 2018, ‘particularly in Henan, Zhejiang, Guangdong and Heilongjiang provinces.’[42]
[42] 99 'China: Submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2023)', Amnesty International, 17 January 2023, p. 5, 20230118112321
They noted authorities are reported to have ‘removed crosses and Christian slogans from church buildings, confiscated or vandalized church property, ordered churches to close, and questioned church leaders and members.’[43] Amnesty International’s annual report briefly refers to the ‘arbitrary arrest and detention’ of house church leaders and practitioners in 2022, among other religious adherents.[44]
[43] 'China: Submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2023)', Amnesty International, 17 January 2023, p. 5, 20230118112321
[44] ‘Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The state of the world’s human rights', Amnesty International, 27 March 2023, p. 124, 20230328142801
Human Rights Watch provide a summary of the treatment of house church members and leaders, and impact of new government regulations, in their 2022 annual report. They report ‘[p]olice continue to harass, arrest, and imprison leaders and members of “house churches,” congregations that refuse to join official Catholic and Protestant churches’. They also state the Measures on the Administration of Internet Religious Information Services ‘have reportedly severely disrupted people’s religious life as many have increasingly relied on online religious gatherings and information especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.’[45]
[45] ‘Human Rights Watch World Report 2023', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 12 January 2023, p. 153, 20230112144355
In September 2022 the Dui Hua Foundation, a US non-profit organisation focussing on Chinese political and religious prisoners, reported about what they refer to as the ‘continuous crackdown’ on house churches. The report summarised the recent closure or obstruction of house churches in Shanxi and Jilin provinces, the arrest of house church members for carrying out missionary activities in Zheijiang Province, and the sentencing of a Christian missionary in Ningxia Province for organising illegal gatherings.[46]
[46] 'Prisoner Updates 2022 #6', Dui Hua Foundation, 1 September 2022, 20220912122329; A review of Dui Hua holdings for the 2022 – 2023 period indicates no further reporting on house churches or other matters relating to Christians in China
United States based non-government organisation ChinaAid (or ChinaAid Association)104 publishes an ‘Annual Persecution Report’ focussing on the PRC government’s treatment of Christians.[47] The 2022 Annual Persecution Report[48] provides an overview of ChinaAid’s reporting for the 2022 calendar year with additional analysis.[49]
[47] The report broadly categorises incidents involving the official treatment of Christians and churches as ‘supressing churches on all front and interrupting regular church activities,’ ‘openly opposing Christianity,’ ‘persecuting justice-seeking Christians in public spheres,’ ‘persecution in economic, social, cultural, and academic spheres,’ ‘purging the Christian faith from cyberspace,’ and a specific update on the Early Rain Covenant Church, ‘ChinaAid's Annual Persecution Report 2022', China Aid Association, 14 February 2023, pp. 19 – 40, 20230313122518
[48] ibid
[49] ‘ChinaAid's Annual Persecution Report 2022', China Aid Association, 14 February 2023, 20230313122518
ChinaAid highlights their reporting of the forcible demolition of churches in Shanxi and Hebei provinces[50] and the outlawing or shutting down of churches across various locations.[51] The report outlines ten cases involving the detention, arrest and/or sentencing of church[52] leaders and members for purportedly fabricated criminal offences across various locations,[53] providing the following summary:
Provincial and local governments arbitrarily detained Chinese Christian leaders and believers from all over China. Prison authorities denied many of these prisoners attorney visits or contact with family. In some cases, they were denied medical treatment and received harsh sentences disproportionate to their alleged crime. Other Christians were detained for long periods before their trials, or their cases were postponed several times.[54]
[50] ibid
[51] Ibid
[52] Ibid
[53] Ibid
[54] ibid
The report also highlights the ‘forced disappearance’ of church leaders and members in five cases,[55] noting that individuals had reportedly been arrested by ‘police and authorities’ on unknown charges.’[56] Other relevant key examples outlined in the report include raids on church meeting places and gatherings,[57] the imposition of fines on church leaders and persons providing church venues,[58] restrictions on the publishing and printing of Christian books and convictions for selling such materials,[59] and censorship of Christian texts online including on social media.[60] ChinaAid further offers their analysis of new trends for the reporting period some of which appear related to newer religious regulations including of online religious information and the organisation of illegal gatherings (worship services).[61]The report provides a summary table of ‘persecution cases’ for 2022 categorised by municipalities.[62]
[55] ‘ChinaAid's Annual Persecution Report 2022', China Aid Association, 14 February 2023, pp. 25 – 26, 20230313122518
[56] ibid
[57] ibid
[58] ibid
[59] ibid
[60] ibid
[61] ibid
[62] ibid
ChinaAid have continued their reporting through 2023 including in relation to the arrest and detention of house church leaders and members,[63] criminal charges (particularly on fraud offences) and legal proceedings,[64] harassment of church members and leaders,[65]removal of Christian iconography,[66] and the banning or closure of house churches.[67] ChinaAid have also reported on other specific measures reportedly aimed at religious groups including Christians. In an August 2023 article, ChinaAid reported that Shandong Province became the first to ‘assign individual social credit scores to religious personnel,’ and that the focus of such measures was to ‘enhance political consciousness.’[68] ChinaAid link this to the ‘Smart Religion App’ launched in March 2023 in Henan Province, which requires worshippers to make online reservations to attend religious services.[69]
[63] 'FIVE COWORKERS ARRESTED IN SHENGJIA CHURCH CASE', China Aid Association, 16 August 2023, 20230905111901; 'PASTOR RU ZONGREN DETAINED DURING CRITICAL MEDICAL TREATMENT', China Aid Association, 17 August 2023, 20230905112131; 'FOUR SHENGJIA CHURCH MEMBERS OFFICIALLY ARRESTED FOR “ILLEGAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS”', China Aid Association, 3 July 2023, 20230905115254; 'PASTOR QIN SIFENG SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS; OTHER COWORKERS RELEASED', China Aid Association, 6 June 2023, 20230906152227; 'PASTOR AND EMPLOYEES OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION CENTER DETAINED', China Aid Association, 30 May 2023, 20230906152533; 'HOUSE CHURCH PASTOR WAN CHANGCHUN ARRESTED TWICE FOR SUPPOSED FINANCIAL CRIMES', China Aid Association, 25 May 2023, 20230906152742; 'YONGZHOU PASTOR ZENG ZHAOTAI DETAINED AND FINED', China Aid Association, 22 May 2023, 20230906152910; 'THREE CHRISTIAN WOMEN ARRESTED FOR “FRAUD”', China Aid Association, 22 May 2023, 20230906153019; 'ABUNDANCE EVANGELICAL CHURCH: CHRISTIANS FINED FOR ATTENDING ZOOM MEETING', China Aid Association, 12 May 2023, 20230906153247; 'NEW ROUND OF PERSECUTION: SEVERAL PASTORS ARRESTED OR CONVICTED', China Aid Association, 20 April 2023, 20230906153719; 'XI’AN POLICE TORTURE ANOTHER INNOCENT CHRISTIAN FOR “FRAUD” CASE', China Aid Association, 29 March 2023, 20230906154214; 'FOUR CHRISTIANS ARRESTED FOR “ORGANIZING AN ILLEGAL GATHERING”', China Aid Association, 27 March 2023, 20230906154349; '“THIS IS MY CROWN OF GLORY”: EARLY RAIN MEMBERS ARRESTED', China Aid Association, 22 March 2023, 20230906154853; 'XI’AN CHURCH OF ABUNDANCE MINISTERS PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL SURVEILLANCE', China Aid Association, 9 January 2023, 20230906155350
[64] 'NEW NORMAL: ZILI CHURCH CHRISTIANS CHARGED WITH FRAUD', China Aid Association, 21 August 2023, 20230905111534; 'MEMBERS AND PASTOR OF CORNERSTONE REFORMED CHURCH CHARGED WITH FRAUD', China Aid Association, 2 August 2023, 20230905112549; 'LEADERS OF CHINESE YOUNG ADULT GROUP CHARGED WITH FRAUD', China Aid Association, 6 July 2023, 20230905115135; 'CHINESE PREACHER DETAINED AND CHARGED WITH “ILLEGAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS”', China Aid Association, 12 June 2023, 20230621142216; 'TWO HOUSE CHURCH LEADERS CHARGED WITH “ORGANIZING A CULT”', China Aid Association, 8 June 2023, 20230621142325; 'NEW ROUND OF PERSECUTION: SEVERAL PASTORS ARRESTED OR CONVICTED', China Aid Association, 20 April 2023, 20230906153719
[65] 'PASTOR AND MEMBERS OF GUANGZHOU BIBLE REFORMED CHURCH HARASSED', China Aid Association, 23 June 2023, 20230906155517; 'APARTMENT COMPLEX ASSAULTS EARLY RAIN CHRISTIANS', China Aid Association, 8 June 2023, 20230906152404; ‘CHENGDU POLICE CONTINUE HARASSMENT OF EARLY RAIN MEMBERS', China Aid Association, 31 March 2023, 20230906154004; 'REPORT: NINE DAYS OF PERSECUTION FOR EARLY RAIN COVENANT CHURCH BEFORE VIOLENT RAID', China Aid Association, 14 March 2023, 20230906154958; 'POLICE PLACE EARLY RAIN PASTOR DAI ZHICHAO UNDER HOME CONFINEMENT AGAIN', China Aid Association, 22 February 2023, 20230906155112
[66] 'CROSS DEMOLITION CONTINUES IN ZHEJIANG PROVINCE', China Aid Association, 8 August 2023, 20230905112427
[67] 'HEAVILY PERSECUTED GUANGZHOU BIBLE REFORMED CHURCH OFFICIALLY BANNED', China Aid Association, 14 September 2023, 20230918121314; 'ILLEGAL SOCIAL ORGANIZATION: GUANGZHOU HUAJING CHRISTIAN CHURCH', China Aid Association, 30 August 2023, 20230905110150; 'SO-CALLED “ILLEGAL ORGANIZATION” GREAT GRACE CHURCH BANNED', China Aid Association, 28 August 2023, 20230905111158; ‘ABUNDANCE EVANGELICAL CHURCH: CHRISTIANS FINED FOR ATTENDING ZOOM MEETING', China Aid Association, 12 May 2023, 20230906153247; 'GUANGZHOU BIBLE REFORMED CHURCH RAIDED BY POLICE', China Aid Association, 8 May 2023, 20230906153600; ‘REPORT: NINE DAYS OF PERSECUTION FOR EARLY RAIN COVENANT CHURCH BEFORE VIOLENT RAID', China Aid Association, 14 March 2023, 20230906154958 'BEIJING SHOUWANG CHURCH RAIDED', China Aid Association, 10 February 2023, 20230906155245
[68] 'CCP TO ASSIGN INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL CREDIT SCORES TO RELIGIOUS PERSONNEL', China Aid Association, 30 August 2023, 20231006155336
[69] '“SMART RELIGION” APP: CHRISTIANS MUST SUBMIT ONLINE FORM TO ATTEND CHURCH', China Aid Association, 6 March 2023, 20231006155115; As also quoted by UCA News: 'Chinese worshipers ‘must’ register online for prayer meetings', UCA News (UCAN), 7 March 2023, 20230313115853
It is difficult to corroborate the many incidents reported by ChinaAid, although their reporting is widely cited by similar Christian advocacy groups and media organisations,[70] and other credible sources including the US Department of State.[71] A May 2022 research response from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada included correspondence from the ChinaAid President.[72] ChinaAid is a US-based self-described Christian organisation, and advocates on behalf of Chinese Christians including through lobbying efforts in the US.[73]Article authors are usually attributed as ‘special correspondents’ or ‘special reporters’ although it is unclear whether they are based in China, have contact with Christians in China or where they otherwise source their information.[74]
[70] For example, Open Doors, UCA News, Bitter Winter
[71] 129 ‘2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', United States Department of State, 15 May 2023, 20230516091411
[72] 130 'China: Treatment of members of Christian Patriotic Churches, including the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) [Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA)', Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 10 May 2022, Section 1.2, 20220602123639
[73] ChinaAid ‘About Us’ page, accessed 6 October 2023, states: ‘ChinaAid is an international non-profit Christian human rights organization committed to promoting religious freedom and the rule of law in China,’ and was founded by Bob Fu, who ‘was a student leader during the Tiananmen Square demonstrations for freedom and democracy in 1989;’ under ‘Frequently Asked Questions,’ ChinaAid expand on their advocacy activities: ChinaAid provides assistance to persecuted people groups and rights activists located in China. We accomplish these goals via our 3 E’s: exposing the abuses, encouraging the abused, and equipping leaders of persecuted groups…ChinaAid exposes the oppression by writing news stories on them in both English and Chinese. We also have an advocacy initiative, in which we testify in front of prominent policymakers and government bodies, including the U.S. Congress and the United Nations….Often, persecution also puts families under duress. In order to encourage the abused, we developed our Family of Prisoners fund, which provides for their various needs. One example of this is the Lin Zhao Freedom Award, which grants a cash prize to people who have made great sacrifices for their promotion of freedom and democracy… ChinaAid also equips people undergoing persecution by providing theological and legal training for them. This gives them the spiritual fortitude to withstand oppression while facing their legal battles with knowledge of their full rights according to both Chinese and international law,’ see Ibid.
TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
Assessing the credibility claims of an Applicant – General Principles
The Tribunal’s task of fact-finding may involve an assessment of an applicant’s credibility. In this context, the Tribunal is guided by the observations and comments of both the High Court and Federal Court of Australia in a number of decisions.[75] In these and other decisions, the courts have made it clear that it is important that the Tribunal is sensitive to the difficulties faced by asylum seekers and that it adopts a reasonable approach in making its findings of credibility.
[75] For example see, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Others (1996) 185 CLR 259; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559; Abebe v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510; Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437; Selvadurai v MIEA & Another (1994) 34 ALD 347; Chand v Minister for Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 1198; Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1998) 93 FCR 220.
In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan[76] Foster J stated that:[77]
“…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.”
[76] (1996) 40 ALD 220
[77] see, at [482]
Numerous decisions have endorsed the principle that benefit of the doubt be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. The Tribunal has also had regard to the decision of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Lian & Others,[78] and the comments of the High Court on the correct approach to determining findings on credibility. Kirby J observed:[79]
“First, it is not erroneous for a decision-maker, presented with a large amount of material, to reach conclusions as to which of the fact (if any) had been established and which had not. An over-nice approach to the standard of proof to be applied here is undesirable. It betrays a misunderstanding of the way administrative decisions are usually made. It is more apt to a court conducting a trial than to the proper performance of the functions of an administrator, even if the delegate of the Minister and even if conducting a secondary determination. It is not an error of law for a decision-maker to test the material provided by the criterion of what is considered to be objectively shown, as long as, in the end, he or she performs the function of speculation about the “real chance” of persecution required by Chan.”
[78] (1996) 185 CLR 259
[79] At [25]
The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any, or all allegations made by an applicant. Nor is it required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out, or obligated to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant’s country of nationality. In Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Full Court of the Federal Court observed that:
“Where there is conflicting evidence from different sources, questions of credit of witnesses may be resolved. The RRT is also entitled to attribute greater weight to one piece of evidence as against another, and to act on its opinion that one version of the facts is more probable than another.” [80]
[80] [1997] FCA 1198 accessed 15 February 2017.
Nevertheless, as Burchett J counselled,[81]it is necessary to:
“…understand that any rational examination of the credit of a story is not to be undertaken by picking it to pieces to uncover little discrepancies. Every lawyer with any practical experience knows that almost any account is likely to involve such discrepancies. The special difficulties of people who have fled their country to a strange country where they seek asylum, often having little understanding of language, cultural and legal problems they face, should be recognised, and recognised by much more than lip service.
The Full Court of the Federal Court noted that “refugee cases may involve special considerations arising out of problems of communication and mistrust, and problems flowing from the experience of trauma and stress prior to arrival in Australia.”[82] On this point, the Tribunal also takes into account the comments of Professor Hathaway in ‘The Law of Refugee Status’ (1991_Butterworths) at pp.84-86. Nevertheless, there is no rule that a decision-maker may not reject an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds unless there are no possible explanations for any delay in the making of claims or for any evidentiary inconsistencies.[83] Nor, is there any rule that a decision-maker must hold a “positive state of disbelief…” before making an adverse credibility assessment in a refugee case. However, if the Tribunal has “no real doubt” that the claimed events did not occur, it will not be necessary for it to consider the possibility that its findings might be wrong.[84] In addition, if the Tribunal makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by an applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence, it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that the claim might possibly be true.[85] The Tribunal is also mindful of the observations of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v The Commonwealth of Australia:[86]
“…the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising. It is necessary always to bear in mind that the Applicant for refugee status is, on one view of events, engaged in an often-desperate battle for freedom, if not life itself.”
[82] see, in Sujeendran Sivalingam v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1998] FCA 1167, at accessed 15 February 2017.
[83] see, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 at 241 per Sackville J (with whom North J agreed).
[86] (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [191].
The Tribunal notes, however, that a decision-maker is entitled to consider whether an applicant subjectively has a well-founded fear of persecution before examining whether such a fear is subjectively held, or to proceed on the assumption that such a fear is held.
If the decision-maker finds on the evidence that the applicant does not have a genuinely held subjective fear there will be no need to consider whether there is an objective basis for the claimed fear or, indeed, whether aspects of the claim a satisfied. The Tribunal notes that in lyer [87] the Tribunal had concluded that certain return visits to Sri Lanka from Australia were voluntary and supported a conclusion that the applicant did not have the necessary fear of persecution required by someone seeking refugee status. The Court confirmed that the Tribunal had applied the correct principles concerning the applicant’s fear of persecution and stated that it did not need to go further in its analysis of the basis of the claim. This decision was affirmed on appeal.[88]
[87] Iyer v MIMA [2000] FCA 52 (see, the judgement of O’Connor J, 4 February 2000), at [32]-[34].
[88] see, Iyer v MIMA [2000] FCA 1788 (see Heerey, Moore and Goldberg JJ, 15 December 2000). Also see, SDAQ v MIMA (2003) 129 FCR 137 at [19] per Cooper J.
The Tribunal notes that if it makes findings that the applicant’s claims are not credible, this may lead to the conclusion that the Tribunal does not believe the applicant held a genuinely subjective fear of harm. Where this is the case, the Tribunal is not required to proceed to assess other aspects of the applicant’s claims. On the other hand, if the decision-maker finds that there is no objective basis for a fear of persecution, there is no obligation to consider whether there is subjective fear.[89]
Consideration of the Applicant’s claims – Is the Applicant entitled to protection as provided for in section 36(2)(a) of the Act?
(a)The applicant’s religious affiliations and beliefs: Is the applicant a member of The Church of Almighty God (‘CAG’)
[89] see, SAAD v MIMA [2003] FCAFC 65 (Cooper, Carr and Finklestein JJ, 11 April 2003) at [38] and see also, Selliah v MIMA [1999] FCA 615 at [40].
Does the Tribunal conclude on the evidence both written and oral that the applicant is a member of the religious group the Call of Almighty God (‘CAG’) religion or faith? The applicant told the Tribunal that ‘all members’ of her family were ‘practicing members of Church of Almighty God’. According to the applicant’s evidence, ‘her parents’ became ‘practicing members of the Church of Almighty God’ when she was about [age]-year-of-age.’ The applicant recalled that when her parents became members, ‘other members’ would ‘bring gifts of food’ to her family as her family was ‘very poor’ at time and this generosity was greatly appreciated. Though, the applicant admitted that at a very young age, ‘she did not understand anything about the religion’ the applicant remembered with fondness the ‘acts of kindness’ she had witnessed as a child. The applicant emphasised the point in her evidence that such acts by other members remained for her ‘her first impression of the Church’ and her ‘respect and appreciation grew’ as she saw more and learnt more about the faith.
The applicant recalled that the family’s faith helped her family greatly. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s recollections of this in her statutory declaration dated 13 June 2021[90] which she states the following:
I heard from my mother that in early [Year] we ran up huge debts and were in financial hardship after my father’s business failed. Relatives and friends stayed away from us and no one helped us. My father ran up against wall after wall. After going through many setbacks, he became taciturn and depressed. After years of hard toil, our economic conditions hadn’t improved, so he started to have suicidal thoughts. In 1999, Uncle [H] living in the same village preached the gospel of Almighty God to my parents. After finding God, not only did my father abandon the thoughts of suicide, but also had a positive attitude to life and became more talkative.
[90] see, AAT File _ Applicant’s submissions and documents in support_ provided.
The applicant goes on to recall that:
From then on, our house was full of laughter and joy. My father said God saved him and took him out of suffering when it was most painful, and he felt helpless. He thanked God for helping him. He had gatherings and prayed to God with church brothers and sisters, and became very happy. I also felt happy for that, and thanked God for bringing joy to our family.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence as truthful and provided with sincerity. The impact of a parent’s dissolution into despair because of an issue or issues which also affected an applicant’s well-being would have a profound and lasting effect on a child witnessing this at a very young age. No doubt, the applicant’s father’s turn-around from a state of despair to one of hope with the help of others within the community – in this case members of the CAG and a parent’s later acceptance of the faith of others as his own would indeed excite feelings of belief in a child witnessing all this.
As the applicant said to the Tribunal, in her evidence, from a very young age and from close observation and tuition provided by her parents she was able to understand the faith of her parents which became her faith. As she notes in her statutory declaration also:
As I was growing up, I observed my parents become more involved with the Church and I noticed that this changed the way they behaved. For example, they started helping other members of the Church community and also passing on the word of God. I remembered how my mother would take vegetables that she had grown in her own vegetable garden and donate them to people who were short of food. Even though I wasn’t involved in the religion directly, I saw how becoming members of the Church of Almighty God was making a positive impact on my family.
Commenting on how the applicant’s own understanding of God developed, the applicant recalled that her mother gradually introduced the basic teachings of the Church over a period of time. The applicant remembered being instructed that ‘God had created heaven and earth’ and that ‘human beings were created by God’. As the applicant grew up more details of the faith were revealed to her and the applicant came to understand from what she had been told that ‘God controlled the fate of all human beings’ and ‘that God is the origin of all life in the world.’ The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s explanations describing her introduction to her faith and how she gained her tuition of the CAG’s doctrinal fundamentals having originated from her parents and in particular, her mother.
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal to explain what she understood to be the doctrinal fundamentals of her faith. The applicant in her evidence acknowledged that the CAG faith – its religious book had ‘different content from other Christian religions’ but did claim a ‘faith in God’ The applicant told the Tribunal that according to the CAG faith, ‘God first created the world and then after creation’, ‘mankind was corrupted by Satan.’ Then, according to the applicant’s understanding ‘God then divined three steps to save humankind.’ According to the applicant the first step was known ‘as the Age of Law’. The second step was known as the ‘Age of Grace’ and the third step was known as the ‘Age of Kingdom.’ The applicant explained that ‘each of these steps’, God had a different name, in the first step God was known as “Jehovah”, then as “Jesus” and then, as “Almighty God.” It was the applicant’s comment that her faith (the CAG as she understood it from her readings) was living in the ‘Age of the Kingdom.’ The Tribunal, from its observation of the applicant in explaining her faith, noted that the applicant had a complete understanding of the fundamental beliefs and teachings of the CAG and explained in her own manner what she understood as the holy text of the faith. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had the holy text before her at the hearing and without any hesitation whatsoever, was able to refer to key passages in the text and to explain their meaning and significance to her as the ‘faithful’ with the assistance of the interpreter without any issue. Moreover, when the Tribunal questioned the applicant on the issue of the text she was referring to, she was able without any hesitation, to tell the Tribunal that the text of CAG was not like other Christian faith documents. This, acknowledgement provided the Tribunal with a confirmation that the applicant’s faith and knowledge of her faith was not in any way a product of induced parody or a blatantly organised ‘put on’ for the purpose to convincing the Tribunal at that moment in being someone she was not. The Tribunal accepts from the evidence before it, that the applicant is a follower of the Call to Almighty God religion or faith and displayed a understanding of the that religion’s or faith’s fundamental doctrinal tenets and beliefs.
Finally, related to the discussion the Tribunal engaged in with the applicant concerning her beliefs noted above, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant how she practiced her religion while in China and then in Australia. The applicant recalled that [while in China] she would practice at home ‘by myself’ and this involved ‘praying once or twice a day.’ Prayer, was followed by rehearsing ‘hymns’ and then ‘reading the Kingdom of the Holy Bible.’ The applicant recalled to that she would often ‘write some notes’ about ‘her understanding of what she had read in the Bible’ for later discussion with other members.
The applicant explained that she would ‘pray, sing and read the Kingdom of the Holy Bible with other members of [her] faith.’ However, the praying and rehearsals were great repressed in volume because she feared being discovered by non-believers. The applicant would meet in community with others, and at those meetings would ‘share our understanding of what we had read’ and ‘discuss things.’ The applicant also ‘attended group meetings at least twice a week’ but did so only if ‘it was safe’ to do so. The applicant said that by carrying out ‘her religious duties’ she also ‘acted as a guide to another member of the Church.’ The applicant admitted in her evidence to the Tribunal that the ‘more I became involved in CAG, the more I realised I would have to hide my beliefs from the community’ at large. The applicant recalled that ‘all members of the faith [in China] had to use false names or pseudonyms to hide their real identity.’ The applicant ‘never knew the real names of my brothers and sisters in China’. What is revealing to the Tribunal from the applicant’s evidence is that this fear of being discovered as a one of the ‘faithful’ of the CAG has carried on to here in Australia, where the applicant in her statutory declaration [91] declared “we still use pseudonyms in Australia because we believe there may be spies who will inform the Chinese government where we are.”[92] According to the evidence, the applicant continues to follow her faith while here in Australia. The applicant provided two of statutory declarations from a two of members of her faith (who are here, in Australia) who deposed to knowing the applicant and having practiced the CAG faith with her on a regular basis. In particular, the Tribunal noted the statutory declaration[93] of (witness) [Ms A]. The witness declares the following:
“1. I know sister [the applicant – Alias] (another name for the applicant)
“2. I was born on [Date] in China. I came to Australia in 2015. I was granted a permanent protection visa [in] 2022. I am unable to return to China because of my religious beliefs. I am a committed member of the Church of All Mighty God. I am known as [Alias] as my Church name.
“3. I first met sister [the applicant – Alias] online in 2016. We were connected because of the Church. From 2016, we would meet in online congregations. In May 2022 we decided to move in together, to our current house in […]. We live with six other sisters of the Church of All Mighty God.
“4. We live in the same house. Sister [the applicant – Alias] and I often read God’s words in the Word Appears in the Flesh together. We pray together, and sing hymns. We have religious meetings that are called fellowship, and we read the gospel together.
“5. Sister [the applicant – Alias] and I preach together online. We mostly do that through [Social media].
[91] see, ATT File_Applicant’s Statutory Declaration _dated 15th June 2021
[92] see, AAT File _ Applicant’s Statutory Declaration _ dated, 15th June 2021.
[93] Ibid _ see AAT File _ [Ms A] Statutory Declaration _ dated 21 November 2023
This witness also provided contact details for verification purposes both as to person and as to what was declared.
The applicant also provided ‘a letter’ from church leader, [Mr B] who stated the following with regards to the applicant:[94]
“…From the information recorded. I know Sister [the applicant – Alias] and a church brother came to Australia [in] August 2016 and contacted the Church in Australia through gospel hotline. She met with members of the Church. After the relevant information was duly checked, such as what recent sermons she listened to, what recent God’s words and what kind of duties and experiences she performed and had in China. Her answers were accepted. We believe that only a genuine member can answer these questions with sufficient level of detail. In addition, we have our own special way to verify her membership in China.
[…]
“…there are specific technicians in the Church in Australia who can contact the Church in China. We have to be very careful about how this is conducted to protect the safety of our church members both here in Australia and in China…
Since she was recognised as a member of the Church of Almighty God, Sister [the applicant – Alias] has been continuously active in the Church of Almighty God in Australia. She regularly attends worship meetings and the meetings we call “fellowships”, where we pray, sing hymn, read and discuss the words of Almighty God and other texts of our beliefs. Sister [the applicant – Alias] currently is performing the duty of spreading the gospel…
We regard Sister [the applicant – Alias] a member in full standing of The Church of Almighty God…”
[94] see, AAT File_ Applicant’s Tribunal submissions_ documents_ Letter from Church Leader, [B]_ dated 2 November 2023.
From the evidence provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant, while being in Australia, has continued with her association and contribution to her church community and indeed, has participated in on-line gospel activities where she has been engaging with others interested in the beliefs of the CAG. The Tribunal noted that the applicant also submitted a copy of her [Social media] activity[95] site where she uses in order to discuss her religion’s beliefs with others interested to become follows. The Tribunal having in mind the efforts undertaken by the State in China and in particular, the Chinese CCP in protecting its political power and its control within China proper and externally, it is more than possible, that the applicant’s activities on-line would have engaged the interest of the Chinese security web which monitor’s such activities which are considered ‘dangerous’ to peace, stability and security of Chinese CCP and the Chinese State. The applicant’s membership and activities while here, in Australia, would be known to the Chinese authorities[96] and would be used against her if ever she was to return to China. Indeed, the country information incorporated within this decision and referred in detail by the Tribunal above, describes CAG (also known as Eastern Lightening) was banned as a xie jiao in November 1995. CAG operates in secret (both to avoid detection and a general matter of practice) and very little is known about the Church. CAG is controversial in China. Multiple claims of illegal activity such as homicides and kidnappings have been reported in the Chinese media. CAG is not well understood but it is clearly illegal in China, and as DFAT reports, reports of “widespread arrests are credible.”[97] Having considered the evidence before the Tribunal concerning the applicant’s religious beliefs and practice and having weighed the current information concerning the CAG faith and practice in China, the Tribunal is satisfied that the authorities in China (at present) would view and consider the applicant’s religious practice and belief (both in China and in Australia) as an ‘evil cult’ and would target her for persecution and harm by Chinese authorities and state. Therefore, the Tribunal finds in accordance with s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that the applicant’s fear of being persecuted for reasons of her religion as she claimed is well a well-founded fear of persecution which she will face in the foreseeable future on her return to China.
(b)Applicant’s other claims
(i)The incident which occurred in May 2015
[95] see AAT File _Applicant’s copy of her website activity_
[96] A subtle surveillance occurs ‘by officials’ or ‘employees’ of Chinese consulates in the various state capitals of Chinese community where certain community activities, events and participants are monitored and recorded.
[97] refer to DFAT Country Information Report – PRC – CHINA, December 2021.
At the hearing the applicant was questioned in relation to an incident which occurred in May 2015. The applicant claimed that local police confiscated her computer when they walked in to ‘gathering’. The applicant went on to say that after examining the applicant’s computer, the police returned it but ‘warned her’ that ‘if they found her faith in God, the would arrest her’. Though, the applicant’s of recollection was disjointed in part and difficult to follow her explanation, her open emotion recollecting that incident (even with the considerable passing of time) the Tribunal noted that the applicant displayed and described a fear which she told the Tribunal never left her and that she believed that her every move could be monitored or betrayed by informants which could not identify. In considering the applicant recollections, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant can only tell it – what she experienced and could not with any certainty tell of the actual motives or mind of the police who questioned her and searched her computer.
The Tribunal accepts the explanation of counsel on this claim. Especially, the comment of counsel that “there may be multiple reasons why the police were to make such a threat.” To the applicant after having examined her computer. Indeed, having considered the country information, the police may have had “significant experience with arresting religious groups” and could have “suspected that the applicant and her housemates appeared to belong to a religious group.” There is country information (and the Tribunal accepts counsel’s reference in their submission[98]) that indicates for example, that the USDOS reports that local police officers are incentivised to arrest xie jiao Christians by having to meet ‘arrest quotas’.[99] The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence at the hearing – her explanation of this incident – and also after reading her additional written evidence submitted[100] - a credible witness and the Tribunal accepts that this incident may have caused the applicant to fear harm or persecution because of the religious beliefs she held as a member of the CAG – known xie jiao religion.
(ii)The applicant’s movements within China
[98] see, AAT File_ Applicant’s written submission to the Tribunal_ & _ Attachments_
[99] ‘United States Department of State, ‘International Religious Freedom Report for 2019: China’, at 16
[100] See AAT File submissions_ written and attachments
The Tribunal asked the applicant – how could she claim that she ‘moved places in May 2014, May 2015 and February 2016. Again, the explanation provided by the applicant was difficult to follow but what the Tribunal was able to understand from the explanation provided by the applicant was that - for all the time she was in China, she was able to so move to different locations within China without attracting the interest of the authorities was that she able to go and live with other particular followers/friends which she and the ‘network’ of CAG members knew and understood where such persons were located.
Having listened to the applicant’s evidence and the evidence provided (written) by her witness and church leader, the fellowship operates on each follower having ‘a pseudonym’ for a name when operating for the CAG – allowing them to relocate in other parts without anyone else knowing their real purpose for their move which could be disguised by other reasons (like for example, seeking employment). This explains to the Tribunal – the how the applicant was able to leave the PRC on a valid passport and issued visa without any issue. For the time the applicant was in China (based on the country information concerning the function of followers of CAG in China – operating in complete secrecy) the applicant concealed her religious activities and communicated with others in the CAG by a strict code of secrecy – both as to identity and meeting. The country information reports that
Members of CAG throughout China continue to be subjected to systematic surveillance of their movements, arbitrary searches of their homes, and monitoring of private communications.” [101]
[101] Centre for Studies on New Religions et al, Joint Submissions to United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘ Universal Periodic Review – China’ file://rilcts16/redirected$/intern13/Downloads/J S17_UPR31_CHN_E_CoverPage.pdf [9.1].
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have chosen to relocate to other parts of China when she claimed to have done so concealing her real purposes for relocation. That being the case, such moves on her part did not in any wave relieve the applicant of any fears of harm she may have had while in China because of her religious beliefs. It was always possible for the code of secrecy, silence and concealment operating amongst members of CAG to have been betrayed by someone willingly or unwillingly and then being discovered by the authorities. That fear of harm and persecution continued in any part the applicant chose to move to within China.
(iii)Applicant’s activities while in Australia
100. At the hearing the applicant was asked by the Tribunal whether she continued her fellowship in CAG while in Australia. Without repeating what the Tribunal considered and concluded above in paragraphs [90] to [91] it is clear on the evidence before the Tribunal both oral and written that the applicant is a committed follower of the CAG. She has not desisted from being involved in CAG activities while here in Australia and indeed has gone further while here, in Australia, through her [Social media] page openly engaged with others on the world wide web attempting to convince them to follow the teachings and beliefs of CAG. While limited in her knowledge of the English language, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant through various translation Apps has the ability and has carried out an active engagement with others with a view of gaining followers for her CAG community in Australia. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal understands and accepts that the Chinese State has long been monitoring subversives activities in foreign countries. Indeed, as far back as 2015, Reuters reported that the Chinese state maintains a keen interest in those it views as subversives even after they have left China.[102]
[102] Paul Mooney and David Lague, ‘ The Price of Dissent: Holding the Fate of Families in its Hands, China controls Refugees Abroad’ Reuters (online) 30 December 2015
101. It is the Tribunal’s considered opinion based on the evidence before it that, the applicant’s activities in Australia would have come to the attention of authorities in China by their operatives in Australia and therefore making the applicant a possible person of interest to the Chinese security authorities exposing the applicant if and when she was to return to China to be the target of harm and persecution inflicted either by indefinite detention, questioning and means of interrogations procured by force and thus the applicant holds a genuine and serious fear of harm because of her religious beliefs and activities while in Australia because of her membership of CAG.
102. The Tribunal accepts and finds in accordance with s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that the applicant’s fear of being persecuted for reasons of her religion and religious activities (while in Australia) as a member of xie jiao religion CAG as she claimed is a well-founded fear of persecution which she will face in the foreseeable future on her return to China.
103. Also, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence submitted (both oral and written) and finds that the applicant is a refugee as defined in section 5H(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied and finds that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in section 36(2)(a) of the Act.
104. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a)
DECISION
105. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Peter Vlahos
MemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
- AGLC
- 2219303 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4675
- Case
- [2023] AATA 4675
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of their membership in the Church of Almighty God, such that Australia would have protection obligations under the relevant legislation. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, the nature and extent of state oversight and persecution of religious groups in China, and whether internal relocation would be a viable option for the applicant to avoid such persecution.
The court reasoned that the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded. It considered evidence detailing the Chinese government's state oversight of religion and its persecution of groups that do not conform to official policies, including crackdowns on house churches, removal of religious symbols, confiscation of property, and the arrest and detention of religious leaders and members. The court noted the applicant's specific claims, including being warned by neighbours about potential reporting to authorities, the arrest of their partner, and the confiscation of their computer with a warning about their faith. The court also considered the applicant's understanding of the Church of Almighty God's teachings and activities, their internal relocation within China through a church network, and their social media activity in Australia. Given the evidence of systematic persecution and the applicant's specific circumstances, the court concluded that the applicant's fear of arrest and detention due to their religious beliefs was credible and that internal relocation would not adequately mitigate this risk.
Consequently, the court remitted the decision for reconsideration, indicating that the applicant's claim for a protection visa should be re-evaluated based on the findings regarding their well-founded fear of persecution.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The applicant was born in [Village], Huo Zhou City in Shan Xi Province China on [Date] and is [Age]-years-of-age. He is of the Han nationality and is a Christian and a member of the ‘Church of Almighty God. The applicant said that he ‘grew up’ in Shan Xi Province with his parents and two [siblings] – a sister and a brother. The applicant is the ‘[birth order] child of the family.’ His father ‘worked as [an Occupation]’ which was located in close proximity to the family home and his mother was a dedicated housewife charged with the running of the household. The applicant’s sister is married and has one child. She resides in the ‘same area’ where all siblings were born. The applicant’s [brother] is still not married. He – the [brother] – left home to seek work and according to the applicant ‘is working’ in the Tai Yuan City which is situated in applicant ‘s home Province, Shan Xi. All members of the applicant’s family are (according to the applicant’s evidence) are practicing members of the ‘Church of Almighty God’. The applicant told the Tribunal, that he has not ‘had any communication’ with his family since he ‘left China’ [in] August 2016 because the applicant ‘fears that any communication will be intercepted by the Chinese authorities’ and the applicant ‘did not wish to put (his family) them at risk.’[2]Applicant’s claims for Protection[3][2] see: also _ Applicant’s Statutory Declaration_ dated 13 June 2021 at p.1[3] Department of Home Affairs File no. [Reference] The Tribunal noted that the applicant made the following written claims in her application for Protection visa which were submitted to the Department and noted in summary form here, as follows:§The Applicant is a devoted Christian in the ‘Church of Almighty God’§In May 2014, when the applicant gathered at [Ms C] sister’s home, she was warned by [Ms C] sister’s son that if she not from the same village he would report her to [the] Public Security Bureau of China; §At another time, the applicant went to [Ms C] sister’s house, neighbours saw her and told [Ms C] sister’s son. He was going to report her to [the] Public Security Bureau, but she escaped with the help of [Ms C]; §In February 2016, her partner, [Mr D] brother, was arrested. From CCTV footage, police knew that she and [Mr D] brother passed in and out together. She now fears arrest if she returns to China; §In May 2015, police confiscated her computer, but did not find anything about her religion. They warned her that if they find evidence of her faith in God, they will arrest her; §The applicant had to seek for help to her brothers and sister (in faith) for accommodation support; §The applicant thinks if returned to China, she will be arrested by police and taken into jail because of religious belief. She moved places in May 2014, May 2015 and February 2016. The applicant claims moving places will not prevent Chinese authorities from searching for an her; §The applicant does not think the authorities will protect her. She claims, ,many brothers and sisters (in faith) were arrested and tortured by Chinese Government. Chinese Government issued a document to arrest people who believe in God.