TB8-29757

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-29757 TB8-29758 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 5, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Ayanna Roberts Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Kristina Cooke, Barrister Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) and XXXX XXXX (co-Appellant) are a married couple who are citizens of Pakistan. * The Appellants claim that they are being targeted by the anti-Shia Sunni extremist groups Sipah Sahaba Pakistan and the Taliban through a local woman and her son. They allege that upon the Principal Appellant's return to Pakistan from Greece, the Principal Appellant received an extortion demand by telephone on XXXX XXXX, 2016, where the callers threatened to kill his family if he did not pay. The family fled Pakistan on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and requested protection upon their arrival in Canada. They also fear persecution as Shia Muslims in Pakistan. The co-Appellant fears persecution as a woman who is a Shia Muslim in Pakistan. * The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refused their request for protection, citing numerous Basis of Claim form (BOC) omissions and contradictions. It also found that they did not face a serious possibility of persecution as Shia Muslims in Pakistan. The Appellants argue that the RPD placed too much emphasis on BOC omissions, incorrectly evaluated their risk as Shia Muslims and failed to analyse the co-Appellant's fears as a Shia Muslim woman in Pakistan. * The determinative issues are whether the Appellants are credible, the risk they face as Shia Muslims in Pakistan and the risk the co-Appellant faces as a woman who is Shia Muslim in Pakistan. * After analysis, I find that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellants are not credible about their risk in Pakistan at the hands of anti-Shia extremists, that they do not face a serious possibility of persecution as Shia Muslims in Pakistan and that the co-Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution as a Shia woman in Pakistan.

DECISION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING The request for an oral hearing is rejected [3] The law1 allows me to hold a hearing if new evidence that was presented: i. raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; ii. is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and iii. if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [4] No evidence allowing me to hold a hearing has been presented on appeal.

ANALYSIS [5] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.2 Corroborating Evidence [6] I have elected to address the Appellants' corroborating evidence first because it was not addressed by the RPD in its decision and because this evidence presents additional credibility concerns as it relates to their fear of harm in Pakistan. [7] I disagree with the Appellants that the RPD's failure to question the Appellants about their corroborating evidence means that it has been accepted as credible and reliable by the RPD. A failure to consider evidence does not mean that it is credible or that it weighs in favour of an Appellant's credibility. Much of the evidence on file relates to the Principal Appellant's situation in Greece, which is not the subject of the negative credibility findings made by the RPD. The evidence relevant to the determinative issues consists of: * Letters from Imambargahs in Pakistan, Greece and Canada, confirming that the Principal Appellant is a Shia Muslim.3 I accept that the Appellants are Shia Muslim. * A First Information Report dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, stating that the Principal Appellant's relations XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX threatened to kill the complainant XXXX XXXX son, XXXX XXXX, because he opposed their use of "abusive words against the pious personalities of Islam".4 Here, the Appellants claim that their

family members were falsely accused by this woman and her son. * An affidavit dated XXXX XXXX, 2018 from the Principal Appellant's father XXXX XXXX stating that the Principal Appellant was threatened by Sipah-Sahaba Pakistan. The affidavit states that a woman in their neighbourhood named XXXX XXXX had links to Sipah-Sahaba Pakistan. It mentions that the Principal Appellant's brother had a fight with her son over a XXXX XXXX which the woman turned into a religious dispute. It also states that the Principal Appellant returned from Greece on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and received a phone call on XXXX XXXX, 2016 that was an extortion attempt. The affidavit states that they suspect that the call was from the woman's son, XXXX XXXX. The affidavit mentions that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, the Principal Appellant received a call from Sipah Sahaba Pakistan, threatening to kill him if he did not pay the extortion money. It states that the Principal Appellant received another call immediately after the first one, threatening serious consequences if he did not pay. It states that the matter was reported to the police who did not act. It states that "we" received another call after returning from the police station, threatening to kill the family for reporting the situation to the police. As a result, the Principal Appellant and his family left Pakistan on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016.5 * An affidavit dated XXXX

XXXX, 2018 from the Principal Appellant's brother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stating that he was physically assaulted by XXXX XXXX whose mother then sent goons to his house to threaten him. In the affidavit, Mr. XXXX states that the police sided with his attacker and registered a frivolous case against him and his father. He explains that since he feared being killed by Sunni extremists, he moved to Lahore in XXXX 2016 to live in hiding. He states that the Principal Appellant received extortion calls upon his return from Greece and left the country as a result.6 * A letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, from the Principal Appellant to the XXXX XXXX XXXX indicating that his family moved from a village to the city five years prior to escape hatred and discrimination by Sunni Muslims. The letter states that he received an extortion call when he returned from Greece on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and is requesting protection from the police for that reason.7 [8] I find that the evidence before me does not resolve the negative credibility issues correctly identified by the RPD. The evidence speaks to a dispute between the Principal Appellant's brother and a local man named XXXX XXXX. The local police appear to believe that the Principal Appellant's family members engaged in a dispute that involves religious content. There is no evidence before me leading me to conclude that the local police laid blasphemy or

other charges against the Principal Appellant's relations or that the Appellants are at a risk at the hands of the police for this reason. Notably, the FIR does not include the Principal Appellant who was in Greece at the time of the incident, or the co-Appellant. Therefore, this FIR would not link the Appellants to any database that could be used by the police or anyone else in Pakistan. Statements from the Appellants and their relations accuse the woman and her son of being linked to extremists. In my credibility analysis, I find that the Appellants have not established this link. Credibility [9] I agree with the Appellants that not every omission from the BOC leads to a negative credibility determination. However, in this case, the omissions and contradictions related to the information they provided in their BOCs are significant and not peripheral. The only omission where I would not necessarily make a negative credibility determination is the omission of the Pakistani woman and her son's names from their BOCs. However, I find that the omission of the fact that their entire family was threatened, that they received telephone threats and that the family home was attacked is significant. The RPD correctly detracted from their credibility for the reasons indicated in its decision. [10] These credibility concerns related to these omissions were not just present in their BOCs;

the Appellants' testimony about these issues presented credibility issues. The story as presented in their BOCs is that a wealthy Pakistani woman has connections with Sipah Sahaba, that this woman's son fought with the Principal Appellant's family over a XXXX XXXX, but that this woman campaigned against them for being Shia. The Principal Appellant then received an extortion demand from her fanatic Sunni son.8 [11] I find that the Appellants have not established that the woman and her son have connections to Sipah Sahaba Pakistan or any other extremist group. [12] Moreover, I find that the Appellants are not credible about their fears relating to the Pakistan woman and her son, and the extortion demand, because they presented several different storylines during testimony, in their BOCs and at the port of entry and failed to resolve the various contradictions between these stories during their hearings before the RPD. Differing storylines cause me to find that the Appellants are not credible about their fear in Pakistan [13] When asked what he feared during the first hearing, the Principal Appellant responded that he fears the Sunni extremists Sipah Sahaba Pakistan and the Taliban and that he fears no other individuals. He explained that there is a lady who is connected to Sipah Sahaba Pakistan in his village and that her group threatened and beat them as a result of his family's

organisation of Shia religious activities. However, since he was in Greece, he was not personally subject to this situation. He testified that upon his arrival in Pakistan, he almost immediately received several calls demanding that he pay XXXX XXXX rupees or face harm.9 [14] Later on, in the first hearing, the Principal Appellant mentioned that his family was attacked in 2013 or 2014 and also in XXXX 2016. The allegations relating to a family history of problems were not present in his BOC. [15] In the RPD Record, the Minister's disclosure reveals interviews with the Principal and co-Appellants where the story differs from both the BOC narrative and the testimony. There the co-Appellant stated that she is requesting refugee protection because they had problems with their landlord in Pakistan. She testified that the landlord's family got them charged and evicted, that her mother-in-law's XXXX XXXX XXXX and that they are being threatened by the landlady and her family.10 [16] Again, the Minister's disclosure indicates that the Principal Appellant intended to claim refugee protection because the village land owner passed away and they had issues with his cruel wife. He indicated that there had been a scuffle, that their home was vandalized, that his mother was beaten and that a false case was registered against them. He stated that as a result of this situation, the elders asked

the family to leave the village. He also stated that another person who is a criminal and that person's brother were arrested for murder and that these kinds of people are demanding money from them.11 [17] Even if I accept that the Principal Appellant thought that he did not have to note down in his BOC the information that he had already given at the airport, his story does not credibly hold together on a balance of probabilities. The story at the port of entry relates to a landlord demanding money. There is no link between this story and the rest of the allegations though there is a link relating to a woman and her son attacking a family. The Appellants testified that the mother-in-law's XXXX XXXX XXXX but for reasons relating to a XXXX XXXX dispute, or because the woman opposes Shia Islam. These elements are unclear and the contradictions have not been reasonably explained. [18] The Appellants' own evidence in the form of affidavits from family omits any mention of a dispute with a landlord or landlady or any ejection from a village by elders though the Principal Appellant's brother mentions an attack related to a dispute over a XXXX XXXX, which was alleged in the BOC narrative. His father also mentions that the dispute began with a XXXX XXXX. Neither mentions being subject to a longer dispute having begun before XXXX 2016, as testified to by the Principal Appellant. [19]

Moreover, the RPD identified a significant contradiction related to the credibility of the claims in the Appellants' BOC. It correctly noted that in their BOCs, they claim extortion at the hands of the wealthy Pakistani woman's "fanatic Sunni son and his gangster friends."12 He did subsequently testify that he did not have problems with the woman's son.13 I do not find that this is peripheral as the Appellants claim on appeal. It is central to their claim and is cited as their reason for leaving Pakistan.14 [20] I acknowledge that the RPD commented several times in its decision that the BOC instructions are clear when concluding that the Appellants are not credible, based on the omissions. However, it did not rely solely upon this element when finding that the Appellants were not credible. Similarly, I am not solely relying upon omissions in the Appellants' BOCs when I find that they are not credible about their fear in Pakistan. The Appellants have told various stories and presented evidence that contradicts the stories that they told. Though both the RPD Member and their counsel attempted to clarify their stories, the Appellants' responses continuously linked their reasoning back to being targeted by Sipah Sahaba Pakistan. However, I do not find that they have credibly established that they are the targets of any Sunni extremist groups. The Appellants have not credibly

established that they are targets of anti-Sunni groups [21] The evidence on file does not allow me to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the Appellants were threatened by Sipah Sahaba Pakistan or the Taliban, on a balance of probabilities. The evidence indicates that the Principal Appellant's family was engaged in a dispute with a local woman and her son and that he was not involved in that dispute. The family affidavits indicate that the dispute was over a XXXX XXXX. The Principal Appellant's testimony indicates that it was unclear to him who demanded money from him upon his return to Pakistan.15 If the Principal Appellant clearly understood in XXXX 2016 that Sipah Sahaba Pakistan had requested money from him in an extortion demand, and if this is why he fled Pakistan, I find that he would not have written in his BOC that the woman's son made the request and then testified that the son was not involved in any dispute with him. This is why I cannot accept his testimony that Sipah Sahaba Pakistan made an extortion demand. [22] The co-Appellant testified that the woman with whom they had problems was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and that though the organisation that she XXXX XXXX was not part of Sipah Sahaba Pakistan, they are connected "somehow." She explained that this woman was often opposed to their religious practices, and that since this woman was

harassing her in-laws, and since Sipah Sahaba and the Taliban oppose the Shia faith, they must be connected.16 I find that the co-Appellant is speculating about a connection between this woman and larger Sunni extremist groups. She has not credibly testified to or established any concrete knowledge of a connection between the Pakistani woman in question and Sipah Sahaba or the Taliban. [23] I find that the Principal Appellants have not credibly established the basis of their claim, which is that they are being targeted by the Sunni extremist groups Sipah Sahaba Pakistan or the Taliban because they are Shia Muslim. For this reason, I reject their arguments that they can be located anywhere in Pakistan using these groups' extended networks. [24] Having found that they are not credible about this aspect of their claims, I do not see the need to evaluate the possibility of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). Profile as Shia Muslims [25] I accept based on their corroborating documents and testimony that the Appellants are Shia Muslims. The Appellants argue that they generally face harm in Pakistan as Shia Muslims. While the Appellants may subjectively fear Sunni extremist groups like the Taliban and Sipah Sahaba Pakistan, I find that they have not established an objective basis for that fear. [26] Both the Pakistan National Documentation Package (NDP) and the Appellants' objective

evidence17 indicate that there is tension between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Pakistan and that there have been attacks on Shia Muslims throughout Pakistan. However, though there have been attacks on Shia in different areas in Pakistan, the main threat against Shia Muslims is in Balochistan or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).18 A review of the Appellants' documentary evidence supports the information in the Pakistan NDP and indicates that most of the attacks referenced occurred in the areas of Quetta, Balochistan against the Hazara ethnic minority, or in the FATA (e.g. Parachinar).19 While it is possible that attacks by extremist groups on Shia Muslims can occur across Pakistan, I find that the threat against Shia Muslims in Pakistan is largely focused in Balochistan and the FATA, on a balance of probabilities. [27] In Pakistan, approximately 97% of Pakistanis are Muslim. Of those, approximately 20% are Shia.20 There are no state restrictions on Shia Muslims' ability to practice their faith and they are well represented in the government and public sectors.21 One of the documents in the Appellants' objective evidence dates from 2012. At the time of that publication, it was thought that about 4000 Shias had been murdered in sectarian violence since 1990.22 This same publication posits that it is not the Pakistani state who is behind anti-Shia sentiment, but external

forces who are invested in the outcome of an ideological battle with Iran. I find that Pakistan, as a state, is not engaged in activities of systemic discrimination or restriction of the ability of Shia Muslims to practice their faith. [28] The Appellants' evidence and the Pakistan NDP indicate that Pakistan is a country where religious and ethnic minorities, as well as the Pakistani authorities, can be the subject of attacks. Shia Muslims are not alone in being the subject of attacks and the Pakistani government has condemned those attacks on Shia23 and taken action against anti-Shia and other extremists.24 In Pakistan today, it is possible that citizens may be subject to a terrorist attack for various reasons, but I do not find that the possibility rises to a balance of probabilities or even a serious possibility. The population of Pakistan is estimated at over 207 million.25 Ethnic violence in Pakistan dropped in 2017 compared to 2016; and in 2017, there were 713 overall incidents of violence resulting in 1,611 deaths and 2,121 injured.26 While any incidents of violence are disturbing, these incidents have affected far less than one percent of the population of Pakistan. [29] While no one should be subject to any attack, terrorist, random or otherwise, I find that the documentary evidence does not support the idea that Shia Muslims inevitably experience attack at the hands

of Sunni extremists everywhere they go in Pakistan. Profile as Shia woman in Pakistan [30] I do find that the RPD erred by not considering the co-Appellant's profile and allegation that she faces a compounded risk in Pakistan as a Shia Muslim who is a woman. However, after analysis, I do not find that she faces a serious possibility of persecution in Pakistan for this reason. [31] The co-Appellant testified that she faced problems daily from childhood to adulthood as a Shia woman but did not offer any detail about what those problems were and how her life was restricted due to those problems. However, the Appellants have provided objective documentary evidence on the situation of women in Pakistan.27 I have also considered the Pakistan NDP28 when analysing the situation of women, Shia or otherwise, in Pakistan. [32] The constitution of Pakistan prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and though one could question whether the political will exists to enforce laws protecting women and girls, there has been progress and efforts made to enact and enforce such legislation.29 The tension between existing laws and their implementation exists in many areas - women have the right to political participation, property ownership and harassment free workplaces, for example, though there is still work to do to ensure that societal attitudes live up to the country's constitutional

objective.30 Generally, I do not find that the objective evidence indicates a situation of discrimination against women in Pakistan that would cause me to conclude that there is a serious possibility of harm related to the laws of the state. [33] The Pakistan NDP and the Appellants' objective documentary evidence state that the issues of domestic violence and honour killings are the primary areas where women have little recourse with respect to state protection and can face an increased risk of violence in Pakistan.31 One document specifies that most incidents of violence against women, including those not characterized as incidents of domestic violence, come at the hands of their relations.32 The documentary evidence leads me to conclude that women in Pakistan do not necessarily face a risk of stranger violence, on a balance of probabilities. I do find that women having credibly demonstrated a risk at the hands of their relations could face a serious risk of persecution since it is unlikely that state protection or an internal flight alternative are available in these cases. [34] The co-Appellant has not alleged that she is victim of domestic violence or other forms of violence against women (such as facing a risk of honour killings). The documentary evidence indicates to me that most forms of violence against women occur at the hands of one's relations. The co-Appellant has

not alleged a fear of any of her family members or in-laws. While the situation of women in Pakistan is not ideal, and while women definitely face challenges and discrimination in Pakistan, I do not find that the co-Appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution as a woman in Pakistan. I have noted nothing in the evidence before me that causes me to consider or conclude that there is a compounded risk as a Shia woman in Pakistan.

CONCLUSION [35] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Ayanna Roberts Ayanna Roberts March 5, 2020 Date AR/dd 1 Subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 RPD Record. Letters from Imambargah XXXX a.s. Association, Imambargah Qasr-e-Batool and Imambargah Jafria Organization Greece. Pages 278-281. 4 RPD Record. First Information Report. Pages 282-283. 5 RPD Record. Affidavit from XXXX. Pages 284-286. 6 RPD Record. Affidavit from XXXX Pages 287-289. 7 RPD Record. Letter to XXXX. Pages 290-291. 8 RPD Record. BOC Narrative of XXXX. Pages 22-24. 9 Hearing Recording. August 8, 2018. Between 50:58 and 56:33 minutes. 10 RPD Record. Minister's disclosure. Transcript of interview with XXXX. Pages 203-204. 11 RPD Record. Minister's disclosure. Transcript of interview with XXXX. Pages 205-206. 12 RPD Record. BOC Narrative of XXXX. Line 49. Page 24. 13 Hearing Recording. August 9, 2018. Between 1:35:31 and 1:41:21 minutes. 14 RPD Record. BOC Narrative of XXXX. Lines 47-55. Page 24. 15 Hearing Recording. August 9, 2018. Between 1:35:31 and 1:41:21 minutes. 16 Hearing Recording. September 19, 2018. Between 5:33 and 14:18 minutes. 17 RPD Record. Objective

Documentary Evidence. Pages 214-243 and 320-337. 18 National Documentation Package (NDP), Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 1.16: Country Information and Guidance. Pakistan: Shia Muslims. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019. 19 RPD Record. "Suicide bomber kills 24 near Shia mosque in Pakistan" Pages 329-330. "Shias in Pakistan's Parachinar caught in the middle of proxy wars." Pages 331-334. "Four members of Shia Hazara community shot dead in Kucklak town near Quetta." Pages 335-336. "Death toll in Pakistan Sufi shrine attack rises to 22." Page 337. "Pakistan day of violence: Scores killed and injured." Pages 214-217."At least 20 killed in Pakistan shrine bombing." Pages 222-223. "Bombing kills 8 in Shia neighbourhood in Pakistan." Pages 224-226. "Two Shia killed, one wounded in Quetta 'target' attack." Pages 237-238. 20 RPD Record. "Who's behind the 'dark money' bankrolling our politics?" Pages 363-372. 21 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 1.16: Country Information and Guidance. Pakistan: Shia Muslims. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019. 22 RPD Record. Pakistan's Shia genocide. Al Jazeera. 26 November 2012. Pages 321-328. 23 RPD Record. "Terrorists target Shia seminary, kill 30 in Pakistan." Pages 373-374. 24 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 1.24: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Pakistan: Security Situation. European Union. European

Asylum Support Office. October 2018. 25 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 1.5: Pakistan. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 16 January 2019. 26 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 1.24: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Pakistan: Security Situation. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. October 2018. 27 RPD Record. Objective documentary evidence. Pages 246-255. 28 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 5. 29 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 2.5: State of human rights in 2017. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. 2017. 30 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 5.9: Pakistan. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 7 December 2018. NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 2.1: Pakistan. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. 13 March 2019. 31 ADD REF TO NDP docs and supra. 32 NDP, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 5.5: Domestic violence, including effectiveness of the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006; state protection and services available to victims. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 14 January 2013. PAK104261.E. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-29757 TB8-29758 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français