"There is ample evidence that many practitioners of Falun Gong have been persecuted. However, although the attitude of the authorities is rather erratic and unpredictable, mere 'low level' practitioners are not generally at risk".

He found further (at para. 25)

"The risk arising from past activities is ... said to be manifested through two police visits to his home either in mid 1999 or one then and one in 2000. The police on these occasions simply asked for him to report to the police station. This was at the time of the first crackdown on Falun Gong. They did not say that they proposed to detain him. They may have been interested in interviewing him as a witness, or in giving him a warning. If they seriously intended to detain him for a lengthy period, it is unlikely they would have explained to his wife the nature of their interest, or asked him simply to report. Whatever the position was then, there is no sign that they have followed up their interest since".

"26. Crucially, there is no background evidence to suggest that people

known to have taken a low level part in Falun Gong prior to the ban in 1999 are pursued today. The vast majority of those in such a position remained in China without being incarcerated. The vicious treatment which the Chinese authorities have inflicted on many Falun Gong practitioners can hardly be overlooked; but it would be far-fetched to suppose that someone in the Appellant's position remains at risk from the authorities six years later.

27. Although Ms Byfield's evidence was heartfelt and interesting, it has no

connection with the individual aspects of the Appellant's case and is of no relevance to the outcome. It is a courageous act for a UK citizen to travel to China to demonstrate in favour of Falun Gong, but it is something else altogether for a Chinese citizen publicly to defy the national authorities. The Appellant has given no indication that he would do so. The argument that his past public practice shows that he would do the same in future ignores the significant difference that his practice was legal then but would not be now.

28. The Appellant is an earnest practitioner of Falun Gong in the UK.

There was an attempt to advance his case on the basis that he might expose himself to risk in China in future, but his own evidence did not amount to saying that he would publicly practice or promote Falun Gong in China. He did practice publicly in 1998 and early 1999, but that is no indication that he would do so in the future, as circumstances have radically changed. Nothing in his evidence suggested that if he did practice at all in China he would do so other than privately in his own home. I am satisfied that he would not do so in such a way as to attract punitive measures from the Chinese authorities.

29. The Appellant's account, even putting the highest realistic

interpretation on it, does not in my view disclose a need for protection."

"As recently as 2003, the Government continued its effort to round up practitioners not already in custody and sanctioned the use of high-pressure tactics and mandatory anti-Falun Gong study sessions to force practitioners to renounce Falun Gong. Even practitioners who had not protested or made public demonstrations of belief reportedly were forced to attend anti-Falun Gong classes or were sent directly to re-education-through-labor-camps, where in some cases, beatings and torture reportedly were used to make them recant. These tactics reportedly resulted in large numbers of practitioners signing pledges to renounce the movement".

In addition reference was made to a passage in a U.S.S.D. Religious Freedom Report 2003 where it was said

"The Government continued its repression of groups that it determined to be 'cults' in general and of the Falun Gong in particular. The arrest, detention and imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners continued. Practitioners who refuse to recant their beliefs are sometimes subjected to harsh treatment in prisons and re-education-through-labor-camps. There have been credible reports of deaths due to torture and abuse".

Finally, reference was made to a passage in a Canadian I.R.B. Report of 10 December 2003 wherein it was said

"The 610 Office is a bureau specifically created by the Chinese Government to persecute Falun Gong, with absolute power over each level of administration in the Party, as well as all other political and judiciary systems".

The appeal should be allowed and the appellant's claim remitted to the A.I.T. for reconsideration.