Country: China Content of the report Part 1: Authors of the report p. 2 Background to the report p. 3 Research Questions p. 3 Responses to Research Questions p. 3 Declaration p.14 Key passage excerpts p. 15 Part 2: Index of full documents p.78 Full documents (in reverse chronological order) p.80 1 Part 1: Authors of the Report: Asylum Research Centre (ARC) Foundation was set up as a charitable incorporated organisation in 2016 to take forward the work of Asylum Research Centre established in 2010 (formerly Asylum Research Consultancy). ARC Foundation provides country reports to support individual asylum claims for use in representations to the UK Home Office, the UK Immigration and Asylum Chambers and to international refugee decision making bodies. In AK, the Tribunal determined that “there may be a useful role in country guidance cases for reports by COI (Country of Origin) analysts/consultants” such as ARC (headnote A (iv) and para. 178) and considered that ARC consultants have the “relevant skills and experience to undertake this work” (para. 178). ARC has been commissioned to provide published COI reports on over 27 countries (available on our website) and for the following Country Guidance (CG) cases: AAR & AA (Non-Arab Darfuris - return) Sudan [2019] UKUT 282 (IAC) (7 August 2019) BA (Returns to Baghdad Iraq CG) [2017] UKUT 18 (IAC) (23 January 2017) CM (EM country guidance; disclosure) Zimbabwe CG [2013] UKUT 59 (IAC) (31 January 2013) HM and others (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG [2012] UKUT 00409(IAC) (13 November 2012) AK (Article 15(c)) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 00163(IAC)(18 May 2012) AA (unattended children) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 16 (IAC) (01 February 2012) In a former capacity at the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS), ARC's consultants provided COI research for: SA (Divorced woman- illegitimate child) Bangladesh CG [2011] UKUT 254 (IAC) (13 July 2011) RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083 (19 November 2008) KH (Article 15(c) Qualification Directive) Iraq CG [2008] UKAIT 00023 (25 March 2008) NA (risk categories, Hema) Democratic Republic of Congo CG [2008] UKAIT 00071 (29 September 2008) ARC Foundation conducts research in accordance with the standards and principles laid down by the European Union Common EU Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information, the Austrian Red Cross/ACCORD Researching COI Training Manual-2013 Edition, and the International Association for Refugee Law Judges Judicial Criteria for Assessing Country of Origin Information. The CVs of the researchers of this report are available on request. For more information about ARC Foundation and its work visit https://asylumresearchcentre.org/ 2 Background to Report: The comments given in this report are supported by COI material that is available in the public domain; the excerpts include all details of relevant references and sources cited. The URLs give access to the reader to verify the information on which the comments are based. Upon request, further information on the background of sources cited in this report can be provided. List of databases and sources consulted (focusing on sources published since 1 January 2019) Databases Ecoi.net Sources Bitter Winter; China Aid; Christian Solidarity Worldwide; Church Times; Open Doors; Sixth Tone; World Watch Monitor; Radio Free Asia; 1. Has the situation for persons practising at unregistered churches worsened since 2013? Responses to Research Questions: 1. Has the situation for persons practising at unregistered churches worsened since 2013? Brief overview of developments in 2018 (emphasis added) Bitter Winter explained that “On February 1, 2018 the New Regulation on Religious Affairs enacted in 2017 came into force. It was the legal embodiment of President Xi Jinping’s new policy on religion, the most restrictive since the Cultural Revolution” (Bitter Winter, 31/12/2019). The U.S. Department of State noted that “The government began enforcing revised regulations in February that govern the activities of religious groups and their members. Religious leaders and groups stated these regulations increased restrictions on their ability to practice their religions, including a new requirement for religious group members to seek approval to travel abroad and a prohibition on “accepting domination by external forces” (USDOS, 21/06/2019). The same source noted that “In March as part of a restructuring of the central government, the Central Committee of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party ] announced the merger of SARA [State Administration of Religious Affairs], which was previously under the purview of the State Council, into the CCP’s UFWD [United Front Work Department], placing responsibility for religious regulations directly under the party” (ibid). The Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade noted that “The RRAs devolve substantial powers and responsibility to local authorities to prevent illegal religious 3 behaviour, including undue influence from foreign organisations. Local authorities have significant discretion in interpreting and implementing the regulations at the provincial level” (DFAT, 03/10/2019). The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that “The regulations detail strict registration criteria for religious organizations. Although registering allows religious groups to apply for status as legal persons, many groups refuse to register because doing so requires submitting to the direction of state-sanctioned patriotic religious associations. The regulations ban ‘unauthorized’ religious teaching and expand the role of local authorities in controlling religious activities. As a consequence, any religious activity conducted online must be reported to local religious affairs departments. Religious groups must also report any donations that exceed 100,000 yuan ($15,900). The regulations effectively ended the legal gray area that had existed for independent religious activity since the early 1980s” (USIRF, April 2019). The same source further noted that “In September [2018], the UFWD launched its first nationwide program to monitor the implementation of religious policies in provinces and municipalities across the country. International criticism of China increased during the latter half of 2018 as the scale of the government’s crackdown on religious freedom and related human rights became more widely publicized” (USCRIF, April 2019). The U.S Vice President stated on 26 July 2018 that “Religious persecution is growing in both scope and scale in the world’s most populous country, the People’s Republic of China…Together with other religious minorities, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians are often under attack” (ibid). In September 2018 Christian Solidarity Worldwide stated that “There has been a marked deterioration in the overall protection of human rights in China from 2013 to the present. The realisation of the right to FoRB [Freedom of Religious Belief] for religion and belief communities in China remains a mixed picture, and conditions vary according to religion, location, ethnicity, attitudes of local officials as well as other factors. However, a tightening of government policy has ensured that conditions have worsened significantly for many religious groups not registered with the state-sanctioned system, while certain registered religious groups have also had their activities and practices restricted. Adherents of Islam and Christianity have been particularly affected” (CSW, September 2018). According to Amnesty International, “since the amended “Regulation on Religious Affairs” came into force in 2018, “house churches” reported further crackdowns across the country, particularly in Henan, Zhejiang, Guangdong and Heilongjiang provinces. Authorities have removed crosses and Christian slogans from church buildings, confiscated or vandalized church properties, ordered churches to close and questioned church leaders and members” (AI, 30/12/2019). Situation in 2019 (emphasis added) The U.S. Department of State explains that “Only religious groups belonging to one of the five state- sanctioned “patriotic religious associations” (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant) are permitted to register with the government and officially permitted to hold worship services” (USDOS 21/06/2019). Furthermore, “Worshipping in a space without pre-approval, either through the formal registration process or by seeking an approval for each service, is considered an illegal religious activity, which may be criminally or administratively punished” (ibid). The same source also described that “Some local governments continued to restrict the growth of unregistered Protestant church networks and cross-congregational affiliations. Some officials reportedly still denied the existence of unregistered churches. Although SARA said family and friends had the right to worship together at home – including prayer and Bible study – without registering with the government, authorities still regularly harassed and detained small groups that did so” (ibid). 4 The Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also described that “There has been an increase in state control of both registered and unregistered churches in recent years, including targeted campaigns to remove hundreds of rooftop crosses from churches, forced demolitions of churches, and harassment and imprisonment of Christian pastors and priests [...]. Some churches deliberately restrict their numbers to avoid attracting adverse official attention. Government