Chinese woman opposed to one-child policy given asylum in Canada — despite having no children

Republish Reprint

Tom Blackwell | 13/06/20 | Last Updated: 13/06/21 8:30 AM ET
More from Tom Blackwell | @tomblackwellNP

AFP/Getty ImagesChina's one-child policy was implemented in 1979, as top leader Deng Xiaoping also introduced historic economic reforms to counter crushing, widespread poverty. But the country has been accused of committing “atrocities” to enforce it.

•  
• Twitter
 
• Google+ 
• LinkedIn 
• Email 
• Comments
•  More

The Federal Court has upheld a decision to grant refugee status to a Chinese woman simply because she opposes her country’s one-child policy and its harsh enforcement — even though she had yet to have any children.

Yanxia Ye’s deep-seated anxiety about being made to wear an intra-uterine device (IUD) and undergo regular pregnancy tests — coupled with her desire to have a large family — was well-founded and qualified as persecution, the court confirmed in a recent decision.

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has considered refugee cases citing the one-child policy before, but they generally involved couples who had already borne two or more children and feared reprisal if forced back to China.

Though Ms. Ye, 29, was pregnant when she and her husband, Ronghui Shen, arrived in Canada in September 2011 and filed their refugee claim, they had no children at that point.

The couple had, however, witnessed some of the consequences of violating China’s one-child rule: Authorities had forcibly sterilized Mr. Shen’s mother, aunt and cousin and Ms. Ye’s mother and aunts, the IRB said.

Related

• Two-child limit imposed on Burma’s Muslim minority criticized as ‘ethnic cleansing’
• Official arrested after toddler is run over and killed in dispute with family over China’s one-child policy
• Time to retire the one-child policy, Chinese government think tank says

The Citizenship and Immigration Ministry appealed the board’s 2012 decision to grant the wife refugee status, apparently afraid it could open the door overly wide to Chinese asylum-seekers, said Dean Pietrantonio, Ms. Ye’s lawyer.

“I think the minister was kind of concerned that it might set some sort of precedent: the person wants to have children, doesn’t have children and makes a refugee claim,” he said.

Still, Mr. Pietrantonio said the case was judged on its specific facts — including the board’s belief that the couple sincerely did want to have multiple children — which would likely limit its application.

The government, however, believes that, coming from a childless couple, the refugee claims had no merit, said Nancy Caron, an Immigration Ministry spokeswoman.

“Ms. Ye would not face a risk of harm upon return to China with regards to the one-child policy,” she said.

The Chinese policy was implemented in 1979, as top leader Deng Xiaoping also introduced historic economic reforms to counter crushing, widespread poverty left in the wake of Mao Zedong’s tumultuous reign.

The “atrocities” committed to enforce the policy are among the worst crimes against humanity in recent times, Ma Jian, a Chinese novelist, argued in an essay earlier this year. “The stains it has left on China may never be erased,” her article in The New York Times concluded.

‘The board found that given [her] unique background and strong views, the cumulative effect of compulsory fitting of an IUD and regular period examinations would amount to persecution’

Figures released by the Health Ministry in March revealed that 336 million abortions and 196 million sterilizations had been carried out in the name of the law.

As well, when couples are discovered to have given birth to unauthorized, additional children, those offspring can be treated as persona non grata — denied state-funded education and other benefits.

Such measures vary from region to region, while exceptions are made for some ethnic minorities, some rural residents and wealthy people who can afford exorbitant fines for surplus children, says the Laogai Research Foundation, a Washington, D.C.,-based human rights group. Yet the policy continues to be “strictly and harshly enforced” in many regions, it says.

On the other hand, a 2008 poll by Pew Research found that 76% of Chinese supported the law, seen as helping prop up the economy.

The refugee board found that Ms. Ye and her husband wanted many children and had strongly held views on family planning: “they did not want to use birth control, submit to pregnancy checks or be subjected to abortion or sterilization.”

In opposing refugee status, the ministry argued it was uncertain whether the couple would, in fact, have to undergo sterilization, given differences in enforcement across China. The board agreed on that point but said Ms. Ye’s fear of mandatory IUD insertion and pregnancy checks was justified. It granted the woman refugee status, but not Mr. Shen, arguing that he would not be subject to the same coercive physical measure as his wife.

The board had sufficient grounds to make its decision, Justice Yvon Pinard said in rejecting the Immigration Ministry’s appeal.

“The board found that given [her] unique background and strong views, the cumulative effect of compulsory fitting of an IUD and regular period examinations would amount to persecution,” said Justice Pinard.

It is unclear now whether or not Mr. Shen will be required to leave the country, said Mr. Pietrantonio.

National Post
tblackwell@nationalpost.com