2022 RLLR 62

2022 RLLR 62 Citation: 2022 RLLR 62 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: July 28, 2022 Panel: Warren Chin Counsel for the Claimant(s): Shah Rukh Zohaib Abbas Country: Pakistan RPD Number: TC2-04392 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2022-01960 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION [1] MEMBER: This is a decision for the claimant XXXX XXXX, file number TC2-04392. The hearing date is July the 28th, 2022. It is Warren Chin rendering the decision. The claimant has waived interpretation for the purposes of rendering the decision. Thank you for that. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. The claimant is claiming to be a citizen of Pakistan and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and sub section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. DETERMINATION [2] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee on the grounds of his religion. And considering that there is a nexus between what the claimant fears in section 96, I have assessed this claim pursuant to section 96. ALLEGATIONS [3] The claimant’s allegations are found in his Basis of Claim form, which are found in Exhibit 2. In summary, the claimant alleges persecution from a militant group, specifically the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, hereafter referred to as the LEJ. The claimant alleges to have a history of being a Shia-Muslim, being religious growing up and becoming more involved with his imambargah since returning to Pakistan in XXXX of 2021 and becoming a part of the XXXX XXXX. The claimant alleges that on XXXX XXXX, 2021, he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the extension of his imambargah, as the claimant owned a plot of land that was adjacent to the imambargah. He claims that the news spread of his gesture. [4] The claimant alleges that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, while the claimant was inspecting the site, four (4) people visited inquiring about claimant and these individuals were LEJ members. They attacked the claimant by hitting the claimant head (sic) on a wall. And the claimant suffered injuries to his head and was bleeding. He was given a warning to forget about that project and to leave his activities within the imambargah. The claimant was taken to the hospital and treated for those injuries. The claimant alleges then on XXXX XXXX, 2021, he was in the market while collecting donations for the project. The claimant then witnessed a beating and the claimant intervened and the attacker instead assaulted the claimant. The claimant was called a Shia Kafir and the attacker then made a phone call for reinforcements, at which point the claimant fled to his home. [5] The claimant alleges that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, there was a groundbreaking ceremony for the imambargah and his XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant invited prominent leaders to talk about the sacrifices of Ahl al-Bayt. And the claimant also gave speeches on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021. The claimant learned that there was a fatwa order issued against him, which ordered LEJ goons to kill the claimant. The claimant alleges that on XXXX XXXX, he learned from his friend that the police have started searching for the claimant due to an FIR, First Information Report that was filed by the maulvi against the claimant for blasphemy [6] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, the claimant fled Pakistan. He transited through the United States and arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, and made a claim for refugee protection shortly thereafter. The claimant alleged that he will be harmed or killed anywhere throughout Pakistan and that he will not be protected. Identity [7] The claimant’s identity is established on a balance of probabilities by his passport on the record that can be found in Exhibit 1. Credibility [8] I do find this claimant to be in an overall credible witness and I, therefore, believe what he has alleged in support of his claim. He testified in a straightforward manner. He spoke naturally and he did not embellish his story. He gave spontaneous details and there were no relevant inconsistencies between his testimony or contradictions within his evidence, which have not been explained in a satisfactory manner. The claimant’s refugee claim is well-documented, and I will take this opportunity to go through the claimant’s material evidence. In support of the claimant’s religious identity, he supplied two (2) affidavits from The Imam XXXX XXXX (ph) that attest to the claimant’s involvement within the imambargah and his appointment to the XXXX XXXX. In relation to his fears, he disclosed two (2) police reports dated XXXX XXXX, 2021, and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021 — sorry, it was XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, as well as copies of the FIR. And a copy of the fatwa issued against him, that could be found at pages 35 through 41 at Exhibit 5. He also disclosed the newspaper article outlining the attack on the claimant. He provided several other affidavits from his brother’s wife, his father, and his lawyer in Pakistan. And there are other documents that establish the claimant’s status as a Shia-Muslim. He provided XXXX slips, evidencing his XXXX history with the imambargah in Pakistan. He also provided evidence of his religious involvement here in Canada. He supplied a letter from the Al Imam Society (ph) in Toronto, Canada that is dated XXXX 2022. [9] Now, in particular this evidence, in my view, corroborates the claimant’s testimony and his allegations is set out in his Basis of Claim form. And after reviewing these documents, I have no reason to doubt their authenticity. The claimant also testified in detail about the attack on him in XXXX 2021. The claimant was able to correctly identify the injuries that he sustained, being injuries to his face. He provided corroborative documents for that attack as well. He provided entry from the daily diary evidence, his complaint to the police. And on the basis of the documentary evidence combined with the claimant’s testimony, I accept the claimant’s allegations, in particular, I find the claimant has established that he a Shia-Muslim, that he is being targeted by the LEJ due to his religious identity as a Shia-Muslim, and the high-profile nature of his activities. Therefore, his subjective fears are established on a balance of probabilities. Objective Basis [10] I find that the claimant has established that he has a serious possibility of persecution or harm should he return to Pakistan, and that he is an active member of his imambargah, and that he has held the position of authority within it. I find that the objective country condition evidence also supports the claimant’s allegations. At Item 2.1, which is a US Department of State Country report on human rights practices for 2019, indicates that societal violence in Pakistan due to religious intolerance remains a serious problem throughout the year. And it reported severe restrictions on religious freedoms. It further indicates that violence, abuse, the social and religious intolerance by militant organizations and other non-state actors contributed to a culture of lawlessness throughout the country. Item 2.3, which is an Amnesty International document on human rights in Pakistan at page 8, indicate that armed groups carry out such a tax on individuals belonging to religious minority groups throughout 2019, which include members of the Shia community. [11] The Australian DFAT, a document dated February 2019 at Item 1.13 at paragraphs 3.99 and 3.100, indicate that sectarian violence in Pakistan has been historically targeting individuals, places of worship, shrines, and religious schools, and that the Shia community traditionally represented a higher proportion of the casualties. Moreover, the Shia community continued to face threats from anti-Shia militant groups, including the LEJ, and other extremist groups. The LEJ stated its objective is to establish an Islamic Sunni state in Pakistan, and it seeks to have all Shia declared as nonbelievers or apostates, and to alienate other minority religious groups. Therefore, on the basis of the objective evidence, I find that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis. State Protection [12] Item 1.8 of the UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of members of religious minorities from Pakistan states that the government has been criticized for failing to protect Shia-Muslims from attacks and allowing militant organizations to operate with impunity, by failing to investigate and punish those responsible for violent attacks. The DFAT reports that the US Commission on international religious freedoms designates Pakistan as a country of particular concern and that the Pakistani government has failed to provide adequate protections to religious minorities and furthermore, that it perpetrated systematic and egregious violations of religious freedoms and that can be found at Item 1.13 of Exhibit 3. The claimant’s evidence is that he went to the police. He was attacked in XXXX of 2021. He disclosed the daily diary entry to corroborate his efforts. He also went to the police after the attack in the market in XXXX of 2021. And given that the claimant’s evidence is that he has already gone to the police and has not received any help, I find that it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek any further protection in this instance and that state protection cannot be seen as being reasonably forthcoming. I, therefore, find the presumption of state protection has been provided with clearing and convincing evidence. Internal Flight Alternative [13] Item 1.8 of Exhibit 3 of page 66 states that an IFA will generally not be available to individual score members of religious minorities and who have a credible risk of being targeted by armed militant groups, given the sustained religiously motivated sectarian violence and the wide geographical reach of such groups. Furthermore, some non state agents of persecution, such as militant groups, reportedly have links to or closely associated with influential actors and the local and central administration, law enforcements, and the judiciary. As a result, these militant groups often operate with impunity and the reach may extend beyond areas not under their immediate control. So, given that the high-profile nature of the claimant’s involvement in the Shia community in Pakistan, along with the objective evidence considering the national reach of the agents of persecution, I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he would not be safe throughout Pakistan, even if he were to relocate. The first prong of the internal flight alternative analysis fails and therefore, an internal flight alternative is not available to this claimant. [14] So, in conclusion, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution if returned to Pakistan on account of his religious profile and based on this evidence, I accept his claim pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and I find that he is a Convention refugee. Sir your claim is accepted. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———