Chinese Family Granted Refugee Status Due to Religious Persecution

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 802936–938 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellants: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Officer

Before: H Cochrane (Member)

Counsel for the Appellants: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: 9 and 10 April 2026

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [1] This is an appeal against a decision of a refugee and protection officer declining to grant refugee status or protected person status to the appellants, a family of three, who are citizens of China. The appellants include the wife, the husband, and their adult son. The Principal Issue on Appeal [2] The appellants claim to be at risk of serious harm on account of their adherence to the [NAME_2], an organisation banned by the authorities in China. [3] The principal issue to be determined is whether the appellants have each established that the risk of suffering harm reaches the required threshold of a real chance.

2 [4] For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellants have established that the real chance threshold is met, and the appellants are each recognised as a refugee. [5] Given that the appellants’ claims are relied upon in respect of all limbs of the appeal, it is appropriate to record it first. THE APPELLANTS’ CASE [6] The account which follows is a summary of the evidence given at the appeal hearing. It is assessed later. Evidence of the Wife [7] The wife was born in Z district, Y province, China. Her mother remains living there. The wife has four sisters and one brother. Three of her sisters and her brother live in Z district. The appellant’s fourth sister, [NAME_3], is a follower of the [NAME_2] and travels around to fulfil her duties. The appellant’s mother is also a believer but remains living with the wife’s brother. The wife’s early life was uneventful for the purposes of this appeal. [8] The appellant and her husband married in 2000. Their son was born several years later. The family lived in Z district where the wife farmed a small piece of land and worked in a grocery store. [9] In 2006, the appellant’s second eldest sister and husband moved to X city where the husband was in charge of a steel factory that his family owned. The appellants soon followed as there was employment for the wife and the husband at the factory. [10] While in X city, the son became very unwell and was hospitalised. After three days in the hospital without improvement, the wife became very worried about their son’s condition and she sought out the advice of an elder, her sister’s mother-in-law, [NAME_4]. [11] The wife was aware that [NAME_4] was a Catholic. When she sought her guidance, [NAME_4] read her scripture and explained how everything that happened was God’s will and therefore it was in his hands and the wife did not need to worry. If God did not want the son to die, then he would not. [NAME_4]’s words put the wife at ease. The women said a prayer together and the wife offered up the fate of the

3 son to God. Shortly thereafter, the son improved, and he was discharged from the hospital. The wife believed that her son’s improvement was the work of God and began meeting weekly with [NAME_4], who began sharing information about her faith. Many of the factory workers were also believers. The wife eventually joined a weekly meeting with other believers, and she shared her experience as a new believer with different factory workers. [12] In 2008, the family returned to their home village in Z district. The factory was not doing well, and the appellant’s sister and her husband also returned home after the factory closed. [13] In December 2012, the wife was out spreading the gospel in a residential neighbourhood with her sister, [NAME_3], and two other [NAME_1] members. They split into two different groups. The wife received a call from a [NAME_1] member who was watching as a lookout, saying that the police had been called. As she received the call, a police car slowly drove by her and rolled down the window. The appellant pretended that she had just heard that her child was very sick, saying that she would hurry home and get an injection for the child. The police car continued past her. As the wife’s sister and her partner came out of a building’s entrance, they were detected by the police. They were immediately arrested, and the wife’s sister cried out “What law have I broken?” to warn the appellant and her partner, who turned and ran. The wife heard the police yell “freeze, freeze” behind her. However, the pair did not stop and ran to a fellow [NAME_1] member’s home. They remained there for a while, during which they prayed and notified the leader about the other pair’s detention. [14] Later, the wife went home and disposed of all her [NAME_1] literature and the family did not stay in their home for the next several weeks. While the wife and her family were in hiding, [NAME_3]’s husband paid RMB5,000 and was able to get her released after five days. The arrest strained the marriage, and [NAME_3] and her husband divorced, with the husband taking custody of their young child. [15] In 2013, the appellants moved to W city, Y province. Fulfilling her duties [16] In 2016, the wife volunteered to fulfil her [NAME_1] duties of spreading the gospel in V city, U province, after the leaders in the city were arrested and the [NAME_1] needed new leaders. The position was intended to be a temporary one but, in 2017, more local leaders were arrested, included a leader with whom the

4 wife had worked closely. She needed to go into hiding for a month, but she then remained in V city to continue to help spread the gospel in that area because the [NAME_1] needed more members after the loss of the leaders who had been arrested. [17] The wife continued fulfilling her duties away from home, in DONG, Yu, and had to go into hiding again in 2018 and 2022 when other members associated with her group were arrested or followed. To stay safe, she went into hiding and did not return home. She did not encounter any difficulties with the authorities by taking these preventative measures. [18] However, the wife missed her family and returned to Z district in 2023. Her husband and son joined her there shortly thereafter. Practice in New Zealand [19] Since being in New Zealand, the wife has maintained her daily practice which includes daily devotion and prayer. If she has time, she will also learn a new song. She does these activities without the fear of being arrested as she did in China. The main distinction between her practice in New Zealand and China is that she can spread the gospel online here which allows her to remain at home with her family. [20] The appellant provided screenshots of her [NAME_5] page on which she is responsible for posting daily. Other brothers and sisters of the [NAME_1] make the posts and provide them to her, which she uploads onto the [NAME_5] page. She scans the people who engage with the posts to see if they are suitable to receive the gospel. If so, she passes their names and avatars to her group leader who sends them messages. [21] The appellant continues to attend weekly gatherings online on Friday mornings. There are eight others, including the gathering leader who attends with her. Evidence of the Son [22] The son is the only child of the wife and the husband. Following an accident which kept him out of school for an extended period, he did not complete Year 5. Nor did he return to school.

5 Drawn to the [NAME_2] [23] The son had been aware of his parents’ beliefs but had not yet become a believer. After his aunt, [NAME_3] came to stay with him in 2016, she could see that he was struggling to control his video game playing. She brought him to a gathering with adolescents who were similar in age to him. Through these gatherings, he started to see how God’s words were good for him. [24] After about six months, the son officially made an application to join the [NAME_1] and began taking on basic duties. He would type out member’s stories or deliver letters around his area. Fulfilling duties [25] In 2018, the son went to fulfil his [NAME_1] duties in V city. There, he learned how to make special effects for the media productions that the [NAME_1] created. He worked with others to create different types of water and fire special effects. [26] While the son was undertaking these duties, a [NAME_1] host had been arrested and had informed the police of the different locations where [NAME_1] members were living. The son had been living with an individual who was known to the arrested member, so the son was advised to leave immediately. He returned to Z district where he moved between his maternal aunts’ and uncle’s homes for about a month in mid-2018. [27] The son then returned to fulfilling his duties in T city, U province. He continued to create digital special effects as his [NAME_1] duties, and he met another believer, [NAME_6], who was close to his age and part of his special effects team. They were together in the same team for several months. [28] In about September 2019, the son and his father were both assigned to the same city in U province. They were able to spend a short time together. However, in that same month, the group had to be evacuated after their host, who rented their accommodation with his real name, was reported missing by his family and the police were searching for him. The son helped to move the [NAME_1]’s computers into one home and then stayed hiding in another home for several weeks. He then resumed his duties and remained there until October 2022. He then undertook his special effects duties in W city and V city for several months before he returned and was reunited with his parents.

6 Practice in New Zealand [29] In New Zealand, the son spends his days spreading the gospel online through a number of different [NAME_5] profiles he manages, some of which have thousands of members. One profile, which was handed over to him by members of the [NAME_1], now has 100,000 members because of his posting and efforts to bring in new members. Another [NAME_5] homepage that the son set up less than three months ago has more than 19,000 followers. The aim of all of the homepages is to share with believers of God that the second coming has happened. The son feels that it is his duty to spread the gospel and finds meaning in creating and posting about faith and positive attitudes which invites the reader to pause and reflect on themselves. Prior to coming to New Zealand, he did not have any analogous experience with [NAME_5] and was taught how to manage a group homepage, post online and send messages to individuals to invite them to gatherings by brothers and sisters of the [NAME_1]. The son has also helped his mother learn how to navigate the homepages and posting as she was also assigned to spreading the gospel online. [30] In addition to fulfilling his duties by managing the [NAME_5] homepages, the son spends time reading God’s words each day. He also attends gatherings online on Friday evenings where the appellant and the seven other members of the group take turns leading it. [31] The son spoke of the impact that the state’s persecution has had on his aunt, [NAME_3], who came to care for him after her arrest. She lost her family and became depressed and withdrawn after the arrest. He cannot imagine returning to China and participating in the state sanctioned churches which do not allow individuals to follow the true path of believing in God. Rather, the appellant feels that the ‘three-self [NAME_1]’ puts country before God and hates the [NAME_2]. Evidence of the Husband [32] The husband was born in Z district, Y province, China. His mother, younger sister and brother still live there. His sister works in a restaurant and his brother is a truck driver. Their father passed away in 2023. The appellant’s early life is uneventful for the purposes of this appeal. [33] The husband became a believer after he saw the changes in his wife and the healing of his child. He felt drawn to the way of living proposed by the [NAME_1].

7 He found it to be meaningful and that it provided direction which had been missing from his life. Following this path, it reduced his arrogance and selfishness. [34] The first time that the husband had difficulties because of his beliefs was in approximately August 2008. He and his wife had spread the gospel to his cousin’s wife. The cousin was a government worker, and his younger sister was a hospital nurse. Their employment required that they sign contracts stating that neither they nor their children believed in God. The cousin was very angry towards the husband and the wife when he found out that they had converted his wife. In 2009, he came to their home twice and broke the glass door and slapped the wife. The husband’s father, despite being the younger brother, came forward to help mediate the situation. Fulfilling duties [35] The husband had a number of assignments outside his home area where he was required to fulfil duties for the [NAME_1]. His first assignment was in V city in 2016, where he was asked to spread the gospel. Although his wife had left several months earlier to fulfil her own duties for the [NAME_1], the husband also undertook this opportunity because [NAME_3] was able to come to W city and live with and care for the son. This provided her with a safe place to live, following her arrest, as she could pretend to be the wife in the family’s hukou (family registration book) if any officials asked for her identification. [36] While in V city, the husband was warned that he had likely been identified by his host who had been arrested. This was a significant point in his faith journey as he had to fall back on his faith to keep him safe. [37] In 2019, the husband spent the year in U province. During this time, he was assigned to the same location as his son, where he joined the son’s special effects team. [38] In July 2021, the husband was a leader in S city, Y province for one year. However, during this time, he spent a period in hiding, during which time he was unable to undertake these duties. Instead, he would respond to members who had sent in letters seeking advice about their problems. [39] In December 2021, the husband travelled to W city. There, he was responsible for spreading the gospel to individuals. This was his last assignment

8 in China as he returned to his home village in May 2023 to be reunited with his family. Practice in New Zealand [40] When the family first arrived in New Zealand, the husband used a stranger’s telephone to find the [NAME_1]’s website and called the telephone number listed on it. A [NAME_1] leader assisted the family in getting settled and, initially, the husband and the wife attended in-person gatherings. They now attend online gatherings at different times but with the same leader. At the gatherings in New Zealand, he feels a sense of relief when he sings the songs loudly and hears God’s words without the need to avoid detection. [41] The main way that the husband practices his faith is to fulfil his duties by spreading God’s words. He finds those individuals with good humanity who are interested to attend the [NAME_1], and he passes their information on to another member of the [NAME_1] who will fellowship with them. [42] The husband referenced a quote from The Word Appears in the Flesh as his favourite. While he could not remember exactly where it could be found in the book, he explained to the Tribunal how to find it on the website. Evidence of [NAME_7] [43] [NAME_7] is a member of the [NAME_2]. She is also the leader of both the husband’s and wife’s gathering groups. While she did not know the appellants in China, she met them shortly after their arrival in New Zealand as she and the wife were assigned to spread the gospel at areas frequented by the Chinese population. [NAME_7] has maintained a relationship with them throughout the time they have been in New Zealand and, since then, she has been assigned as the leader of the gathering groups of which the wife and the husband are members, and she participates in a number of others. She also continues to work with the wife in spreading the gospel online. [44] According to [NAME_7], the wife and the husband are devout and sincere believers of the [NAME_2]. She has witnessed both individuals practice their faith in New Zealand. She was particularly impressed with the wife who, despite having her initial claim for refugee and protected person status declined, did not fail at her duties and relied on God to help her through that difficult time.

9 Evidence of [NAME_6] [45] [NAME_6] is a member of the [NAME_2] and cooperated with the son in their special effect duties in China. They are the same age. [46] [NAME_6] has been a believer since childhood. Both his parents were believers in God, and he formally joined the [NAME_1] in 2018. His mother remains in China, but his father has passed away. [47] [NAME_6] is responsible for setting up all new members in New Zealand with accounts and software so that they can access the online gatherings. He recognised the son’s name and wondered if it might be the same person who was in his special effects group in China. He reached out and they reconnected. The son is the only [NAME_1] member he knew in China who is here in New Zealand; although he knows of others who have left but they are in different countries. While he did not meet either of the son’s parents, he knew that they were also believers and were performing their duties elsewhere. [48] [NAME_6] feels confident that the appellants are believers in [NAME_1] and hopes that his support will help to prove their faith to the Tribunal. Other Evidence and Submissions Received [49] The Tribunal was provided with each of the appellants’ Refugee Status Unit files, which included all documents submitted at the first instance, Immigration New Zealand’s electronic records for the family and the Refugee Status Unit’s written decision (5 May 2025). [50] Counsel filed written opening submissions (31 March 2026), documentary evidence of the family’s online communications in proselytising through text message and [NAME_5] and participation in online gatherings of the [NAME_1]. Witness statements from the two witnesses who appeared before the Tribunal were also provided. At the close of the hearing, counsel provided oral closing submissions. Following the hearing, the further evidence of the son’s [NAME_5] homepage was provided.

10 ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANTS’ CLAIM [51] Under section 198 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”), on an appeal concerning refugee or protected person status under section 194(1)(c), the Tribunal must determine (in this order) whether to recognise an appellant as: (a) a refugee under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention” or “the Convention”) (section 129); and (b) a protected person under the 1984 Convention Against Torture (section 130); and (c) a protected person under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the ICCPR”) (section 131). [52] There is a statutory obligation on the appellants, under section 226(1) of the Act, to establish their claim: It is the responsibility of an appellant or affected person to establish his or her case or claim, and the appellant or affected person must ensure that all information, evidence, and submissions that he or she wishes to have considered in support of the appeal or matter are provided to the Tribunal before it makes its decision on the appeal or matter. [53] In determining whether each appellant is a refugee or a protected person, it is necessary to identify the facts against which the assessment is to be made. Section 218(1) of the Act recognises that the Tribunal is a “specialist body” that has the role of deciding appeals and matters by: … making findings of fact, applying the relevant law and making a determination. [54] This requires the assessment of the evidence presented in support of the appellants’ case. As explained in AQ (Democratic Republic of Congo) [2025] NZIPT 802417, in line with New Zealand’s obligations under international law, the Act and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, the Tribunal makes an assessment of the evidence presented in support of the appellants’ case in order to make findings of fact, including through an assessment of credibility. In this assessment, only evidence to which no credence can be attached is discounted. The rest of the evidence is either accepted or afforded the benefit of the doubt and given full weight. A risk assessment proceeds on the findings of fact. See AQ (Democratic Republic of Congo), at [78].

11 Assessment of the Evidence [55] The appellants’ and their witnesses’ evidence are accepted. The three family members gave accounts of their own experiences in China and New Zealand which were plausible and consistent with each other. The appellants’ witness, [NAME_7], corroborated the wife’s and husband’s involvement in the [NAME_1] in New Zealand and how they each individually express their belief in God. [56] [NAME_6] confirmed the son’s activities in the [NAME_1] in China and New Zealand. Further, the son’s numerous [NAME_5] accounts, including the ones he has set up himself, demonstrate his continued involvement in trying to persuade others who believe in God to join the [NAME_1]. [57] As the evidence is accepted, it is these facts on which the appeals will be determined. THE REFUGEE CONVENTION [58] Section 129(1) of the Act provides that: A person must be recognised as a refugee in accordance with this Act if he or she is a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention. [59] Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention provides that a refugee is a person who: ... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. [60] In determining what is meant by “well-founded” in Article 1A(2) of the Convention, the Tribunal adopts the approach in [NAME_8] v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, where it was held that a fear of being persecuted is established as well-founded when there is a real, as opposed to a remote or speculative, chance of it occurring. The standard is entirely objective; see Refugee Appeal No 76044 (11 September 2008), at [57]; and HX (China) [2023] NZIPT 802189 at [55]–[60].

12 [61] “Being persecuted” requires serious harm arising from the breach of internationally recognised human rights, demonstrative of a failure of state protection; see DS (Iran) [2016] NZIPT 800788, at [114]–[130] and [177]–[183]. [62] The principal issues are, as explained in Refugee Appeal No 70074 (17 September 1996), affirmed by the Tribunal in DS (Iran) [2016] NZIPT 800788, at [213]: (a) Objectively, on the facts as found, is there a real chance of the appellants being persecuted in the country of nationality? (b) If the answer is yes, is there a Convention reason for that persecution? Objectively, on the Facts as Found, is there a Real Chance of the Appellants Being Persecuted in China? [63] It is necessary to record relevant country information to provide context to the appellants’ case. Relevant country information [64] Country information about the [NAME_2] was reviewed by the Tribunal in IX (Hong Kong) [2024] NZIPT 802318 and sections are reproduced in the text below. [65] A singular characteristic of the [NAME_2] (also known as [NAME_1] or, alternatively, [NAME_9]) is the difficulty experienced by commentators in identifying its origin, its following, its beliefs and its activities. For example, a 2013 research report compiled by the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada CHN104304.E China: The [NAME_2], Also Known as "[NAME_9]," Including its History, Beliefs, and Where it is Present; Treatment of Members by Government Authorities (11 March 2013) struggled to provide any definitive information (citations omitted for ease of reading): Some sources report that the group was founded in Heilongjiang Province in 1989. Other sources indicate that the group was found in the early 1990s in Henan Province. According to the CFAR [Centers for Apologetics Research], it originated in Zhengzhou [Henan's capital]. Several sources indicate that the founder of the group was [NAME_9].

13 2. Location of Group According to two sources, the group appears to be present throughout China. CFAR says that its headquarters are in Zhenzhou in Henan. In addition to being found in mainland China, the group is also reportedly present in Hong Kong, the United States and Taiwan. The CFAR claims that the group also has headquarters in West Nyack in New York State. [NAME_9], the group's leader, is reportedly living in the US.

3. Beliefs Sources report that members of the [NAME_2] believe that Jesus Christ has returned as a woman living in China. Two sources say that the [NAME_1] believes that she lives in Henan Province. Some sources also indicate that the group has produced a third testament of the Bible. According to the [NAME_18], an US-based [non-government organisation] dedicated to human rights in China, the group believes that this female Christ ‘will reign over a new age in which humankind will be judged and only believers will survive’. CFAR reports that members believe that believers can find salvation through this female Christ. Other sources report that those who do not accept her will experience a ‘terrible’ death or ‘severe punishment’. The woman is also known as ‘[NAME_9]’ or simply ‘[NAME_9]’. [66] That this lack of verifiable information has led some commentators to view the [NAME_1] with suspicion is perhaps unsurprising. The [NAME_1] was declared an ‘evil cult’ by the Chinese Communist Party in 1995. However, a 2019 update by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has acknowledged that the problem is, at least in part, because the [NAME_1] itself is secretive because of the need to protect its members from the oppression of the Chinese government; see Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada CHN106382.E China: Update of CHN106256 of 23 September 2019 on the [NAME_2] ([NAME_1])…, Also Known as “[NAME_9]”, Including its Leaders, Location and Activities; Treatment of Members by Society and Authorities (2014–October 2019) (24 October 2019) (“2019 IRB report”). That report was based upon discussions with a number of academics and others with knowledge of the [NAME_1], though their identities were withheld from the report; see IX (Hong Kong) at [70]–[71]. [67] According to the 2019 IRB report, the main religious text of the [NAME_1] is The Word Appears in the Flesh (Hua zai roushen xianxian), originally published in 1997. It teaches that the Old Testament was the Age of Law and the time from the birth of Jesus to the manifestation of [NAME_1] was the Age of Grace. Now, the world has entered the third age, the Age of Kingdom. With Christ’s sacrifice, the sins of humans were forgiven but their sinful nature was not eradicated. The mission of [NAME_1] is to eradicate the sinful nature of people who both accept God's new message and accept to be purified; see IX (Hong Kong) at [76].

14 [68] [NAME_2] content may be found electronically including through YouTube, [NAME_2] mobile apps and a number of different websites dedicated to sharing the [NAME_2] materials. The websites list the [NAME_1]’s mobile apps and encourage visitors to connect with them through [NAME_5] messenger or WhatsApp. The websites also list “gospel hotlines” with local numbers in various locations around the world. [69] The [NAME_1] appears to operate by members forming very small groups and it may be that the relative isolation of such groups from each other and from a more traditional [NAME_1] hierarchy means that there is potential for an isolated group to take a path of its own or form the focus of their practice on specific aspects of the [NAME_1]’s tenets. [NAME_10] (evil cult) organisations [70] [NAME_10] groups are organisations that the Chinese government regards as hostile to the government and are outlawed as banned groups. The United States Department of State 2023 International Religious Freedom: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang) (26 June 2024) reports, at p13, that: The law bans certain religious or spiritual groups. Criminal law defines banned groups as ‘cult [[NAME_10]] organizations’ and provides for criminal prosecution of individuals belonging to such groups and punishment of up to life in prison. There are no published criteria for determining, or procedures for challenging, such a designation. Criminal law prohibits ‘organizing and using a sect, cult, or superstition to undermine implementation of the law.’ Violations carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The CCP maintains an extra legal, party-run security apparatus to eliminate the [NAME_11] [NAME_11] movement and other banned organizations. ... The government also characterizes a number of Christian groups as ‘cult organizations,’ including the [NAME_12], [NAME_1] (also known as [NAME_9]) … [71] The United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China noted that, during the reporting year, Chinese authorities continued to “monitor, detain, and imprison [NAME_13], [NAME_15], and other for being members of ‘evil cults’”, and regularly prosecuted adherents of such organisations under Article 300 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, see United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2024 Annual Report (16 December 2024), at pp11–12 and 88. Such offending can attract penalties of up to three years for minor matters, although offending deemed serious can attract prison terms of up to life imprisonment.

15 [72] It is evident from the 2019 IRB report that mere membership of the [NAME_1] suffices to attract the adverse attention of the authorities in China, without the person holding any leadership position or undertaking any particular activities: According to Freedom House, the majority of people sentenced in verdicts since 2014, ‘including members of the [NAME_1] sect, appear to have been imprisoned for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of belief and expression rather than for engaging in violence against other Chinese’. According to the [International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees] [NAME_16], ‘arrested members of the [NAME_1] are not accused of any crime other than being believers in [NAME_1]. Being in possession of the [NAME_1]’s holy book is a sufficient ground to be arrested and imprisoned’. The Distinguished Professor similarly stated that [NAME_1] members have been arrested and mistreated ‘for nothing more than 'thought crimes’. [73] Another source provided similar accounts, in the 2019 IRB report, noting that it had been all women who had been targeted for their minor association with a group: The Associate Professor stated that individuals with simple membership or any links to the [NAME_1] can be ‘targeted,’ not just leaders or activists. She stated having heard several accounts, all by women, of being subject to two to three years in jail for ‘relatively minor offences’ relating to the [NAME_1], such as owning the place where a meeting was held, the possession of literature or, in one case, because her name was on a document where a [NAME_1] text had been copied. The [NAME_17] explained that ‘[n]o crime other than being part of a [NAME_10] is needed for the application of article 300 [of the criminal code]’. [74] The 2019 IRB report also identified arrests and the Chinese authorities’ efforts across different provinces: Sources report that, according to state-run media, 18 people linked to the [NAME_1] were arrested in July 2017, in Changxian county in Zhejian province. Radio Free Asia (RFA) reports that between May and mid-June 2018, 32 members of the [NAME_1] were arrested in Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, with 15 still in custody at the time of the report; over 70 members were also arrested in the cities of Nanjing and Yangzhou [also in Jiangsu]. The same source adds that 500 members were arrested in Liaoning Province during [translation] ‘Operation Thunderbolt’ between 26 and 28 June. The US Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report for 2018 reports the following: In August [2018] the Association for the Defense of Human Rights and Religious Freedom (ADHRRF), an international [non-government organisation] providing regular reports on the situation of the [NAME_2], reported that between April and August, authorities in Chongqing, Sichuan Province, detained 109 [NAME_1] members. Of those, 40 remained missing at years end. The same report also cites the Political Prisoner Database (PPDB) of the [NAME_18], a human rights [non-government organisation], as reporting that 277 [NAME_1] members were imprisoned at the end of 2017, while 205 were imprisoned at the end of 2018; according to the [NAME_18], the PPDB does not include the ‘total number of religious prisoners’. [75] In a 2021 update to its 2019 update, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has noted the continued mistreatment of [NAME_15] by the authorities. In CHN200597.E China: The [NAME_2]

16 ([NAME_1]) ([NAME_19] 全能神教; Quannengshen 全能神), Also Known as “[NAME_9]” Including its Leaders, Location and Activities; Treatment of Members by Authorities; Religious Texts Used; Whether All Members Have Access to Religious Texts (2019–October 2021) (14 October 2021), the Board recorded (citations omitted): A report by [[NAME_20]], a UK-based organization that advocates for the right to freedom of religion and documents violations of religious rights, states that [NAME_1] members outside of China report ‘ongoing and serious violations’ against [NAME_1] members, including ‘torture in detention, intrusive surveillance, and intense pressure to recant’. According to Introvigne, ‘many witnesses’ have ‘testified’ that ‘prisoners of conscience in Chinese jails and detention camps,’ including [NAME_1] prisoners ‘risk torture or extra-judicial killing’. The [NAME_21] stated that [NAME_1] members in France they spoke with ‘spent many hours telling [them] their stories, the stories of friends or family members who had died, or disappeared, or had come home mutilated or under shock’. In contrast, the Associate Professor provided the following information regarding the [NAME_1]'s treatment by authorities: [D]uring my fieldwork carried out [in 2016 in a coastal city in Southeast China where religious politics are relatively flexible] I was told [by a friend working in the local Political Consultative Conference] that generally ordinary followers of the [NAME_1] would be released soon after they signed a guarantee promising to leave the group, and old followers were just alerted by local authority [not to take part in the [NAME_1] anymore].… It also depends on local religious policy which is more severe in some cities while flexible in others. The same source noted that when ‘[l]ocal police know’ the [NAME_1] is ‘only a social life’ for a practitioner, they will ‘not lose their time investigating them’. Application to the facts [76] The Tribunal is satisfied that there is a real chance of the appellants being persecuted in China because of their religious beliefs. [77] The wife was introduced to the [NAME_2] by her sister’s mother-in-law, [NAME_4], during a vulnerable period in her life. She officially joined the [NAME_1] several months later and travelled to several different cities to fulfil her duties for the [NAME_1] between 2016 and 2023. In New Zealand, she has maintained the practice of her beliefs and continued her participation in the [NAME_2] by spreading the gospel, including online through a [NAME_5] homepage. [78] The husband was also introduced to the [NAME_2] in 2006, by [NAME_4] after witnessing the changes in his wife and the healing of his child. He has also undertaken assignments to fulfil his duties outside of his home between 2016 and 2023. The husband considers proselytising to be a dominant feature of his faith.

17 [79] The son became a believer with the help of his aunt who saw that his addiction to video games was not healthy. He joined the [NAME_1] in 2016 and began undertaking activities away from home in 2018. He only began to proselytise while here in New Zealand but has found meaning in being able to share the posts he has created with individuals with the intention of drawing them into the [NAME_1]. [80] It is not overlooked that none of the appellants have ever been detained or mistreated by the Chinese authorities, despite them each having spent a number of years outside their home district, gathering in small groups and undertaking various duties for the [NAME_1]. There is also no doubt that the appellants’ activities in China were undertaken cautiously and ‘under the radar’ solely because of the risk of detection by the authorities and that such detection almost eventuated on a number of occasions. [81] The country information is clear that members of the [NAME_2] are not free to practice their religion. Gathering in small groups and/or possessing religious materials will put individuals at risk of arrest or prosecution because membership in a [NAME_10] organisation itself is sufficient for the application of Article 300 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. [82] The appellants’ right to hold such beliefs under Article 18(1) of the ICCPR is non-derogable. Under Article 18(3), the right to manifest such beliefs may be derogated from only in limited circumstances. Arbitrary detention and mistreatment is likely to follow any interaction with the Chinese authorities and could not be justified by the state in terms of being “necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. Clearly, the appellants are unable to manifest their beliefs, including proselytising, in a manner that avoids a real chance of suffering serious harm arising from a breach of their rights. To practise as each of them has done in New Zealand would expose them to the risk of harm identified by the country information — harassment, arrests, arbitrary detention and physical mistreatment. Such treatment would constitute serious harm. [83] Any self-imposed restriction of the appellants’ manifestation of their beliefs in the hope of avoiding such harm is not a permissible solution. To deny oneself the exercise of a right recognised at international law, solely in order to avoid the infliction of serious harm arising from breaches of other rights on the person, is equally a serious interference with the person’s rights. The Tribunal is satisfied that it, too, would constitute serious harm arising from breaches of human rights.

18 The appellants cannot expect any protection from the state, and indeed it is the state that is the source of the harm. The appellants have established that they are at risk of “being persecuted” as described at [61] above. Conclusion on risk of being persecuted [84] For these reasons, The Tribunal finds that objectively, on the facts as found, there is a real chance of the appellants being persecuted in China. Is there a Convention Reason for the Persecution? [85] In order to be recognised as a refugee, a claimant must establish not only a well-founded fear of being persecuted, but also that this predicament is linked to one of the five Convention grounds. This requires that the Convention ground be a contributing cause to the risk of being persecuted; see Refugee Appeal No 72635 (6 September 2002) at [173]. In this case, the Convention reason linked to each of the appellants’ predicament is the ground of religion. Internal Protection Alternative [86] The question whether the appellants have a viable internal protection alternative requires consideration as to whether the appellants can access and enjoy meaningful domestic protection elsewhere in the home country; see BI (Afghanistan) [2018] NZIPT 801220 at [50]; and Refugee Appeal No 76044 (11 September 2008). [87] It is not necessary to deal with this in any detail in this case because the agent of persecution is the state and is expected to have the machinery and the will to access all parts of the country. For this reason, the appellants have no viable internal protection alternative. Exclusion [88] There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal which raises any issue under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention. Conclusion on Claim to Refugee Status [89] For the foregoing reasons, the appellants are recognised as refugees.

19 Protected Person Status Under the Convention Against Torture and the ICCPR [90] By virtue of section 164 of the Act (the exceptions to which do not apply), the appellants cannot be deported from New Zealand because they are each recognised as a refugee. This accords with New Zealand’s non-refoulement obligation under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.

Accordingly, there are no substantial grounds for believing that the appellants would be in danger of being subjected to torture, arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel treatment if deported from New Zealand (sections 130(1) and 131(1) and (6) of the Act). [91] The appellants do not require protection under the Convention Against Torture or the ICCPR. They are not protected persons within the meaning of sections 130(1) or 131(1) of the Act.

CONCLUSION [92] For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that each of the appellants: [redacted] is a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention and, therefore, is a refugee under section 129 of the Act; (b) is not a protected person within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Convention Against Torture and, therefore, is not a protected person under section 130 of the Act; (c) is not a protected person within the meaning of the relevant elements of Articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR and, therefore, is not a protected person under section 131 of the Act. [93] The appeals are allowed. Order as to Depersonalised and Abridged Research Copy [94] The disclosure of parts of this decision beyond the parties (and those to whom disclosure is permitted by section 151(2)) would tend to identify the appellants and/or be likely to endanger the safety of the appellant or others. [95] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal orders that, until further order, the indicated parts of the decision are to be redacted by

20 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

H Cochrane Member removal of names and particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant from the research copy of this decision. “H Cochrane” H Cochrane Member