VB9-08412

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-08412 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 26, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Kimberley Foreman Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Raoul Boulakia Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX (The Appellant), a citizen of Pakistan, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated September 16, 2019, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to overturn the RPD's decision and either substitute a finding that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection or, in the alternative, to send the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act"), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he became the male head of the household after his father died; he was thirteen. His elder sister married their maternal cousin, XXXX XXXX in 2008. A few months after the marriage, her husband and his brother were killed over a XXXX XXXX. The victims' uncle, XXXX XXXX, and his ten associates were arrested for the murders. The Appellant alleges that in XXXX 2011, XXXX XXXX and his son were released from jail due to his strong influence and power. The remainder of those convicted of the death of XXXX XXXX were released in 2018, after the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the overturning of their convictions. [4] The Appellant alleges that in 2011, XXXX XXXX and his son came to his home and threatened him and his sister. They urged the Appellant's sister to forgive the parties involved in the murder, so that they could be pardoned and released from jail. She refused. The Appellant alleges that he and his family continued to be harassed by their uncle and pressured to assist in the release of the remaining perpetrators of the crime. [5] The family sought protection from the police, but it was not forthcoming. They moved the Appellant's sister and her son to safety in the United States in 2015. The threats continued at the family farm, and an incident in Lahore. The Appellant left for Canada in XXXX of 2018 and made a claim for refugee protection. He fears that if he returns to Pakistan that he would be killed. [6] The Appellant alleges that the RPD erred in finding that there was a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) for him in Pakistan. The Appellant has not submitted any new evidence in support of his appeal and does not ask for a hearing before the RAD. Role of the RAD [7] Where the RAD determines that the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of the Appellant's evidence, it may defer to the RPD findings. Having listened to the audio recording of the RPD hearing and reviewing the evidence, I find that the RPD did not benefit from any meaningful advantage in assessing the Appellant's evidence. As a result, I have assessed the RPD's decision on the correctness standard as per the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Huruglica.1 Analysis [8] The RPD panel rejected the claim for refugee protection based on the availability of a viable IFA for the Appellant in Karachi, Hyderabad, or Islamabad. I am not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that the RPD erred in its IFA findings. [9] At the outset of the hearing, the RPD identified IFA as a potential issue. The proposed IFA locations were Karachi, Hyderabad, and Islamabad, and the Member found there were IFAs available in each of those cities. [10] After an independent review of the Record and the audio recording of the hearing, I find that the Appellant has viable IFAs in all of the above-noted cities. I have considered the totality of the evidence and find that there is not a serious possibility of persecution for the Appellant in the IFA locations, nor is it unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate to these locations. [11] In order to determine whether a viable IFA exists, I have considered the two-prong test from Thirunavukkarasu.2 I must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted in the part of the country in which it finds an IFA exists. Furthermore, conditions in that part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for them to seek refuge there. The Appellant bears the burden of proof to show that they would be persecuted under one of the Convention grounds, or be subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of Pakistan and specifically in the potential IFA areas of Karachi, Hyderabad and Islamabad (the "IFA locations") in this case. I find that the Appellant has not met this burden. There is no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA Locations [12] In reviewing whether there is more than a mere possibility of persecution in the IFA location, I have considered whether the agent of persecution possesses both the "motivation and the means"3 to locate the Appellant in the proposed IFA locations. [13] I have reviewed the recording of the hearing in its entirety. The Appellant testified that the principal agent of persecution, his uncle, is a businessman. He provided testimony that his uncle is a wealthy and influential man and can have him traced through police contacts. He noted that his sentence was shortened, but I note that the court documents show that the uncle was acquitted of the offence while he was out on bail.4 [14] The Appellant testified that the agents of persecution want revenge because his sister would not sign a pardon for the individuals who were involved in her husband's murder. He notes that he will eventually be found, no matter where he lives, noting that the agents found him in 2015 in Lahore. The Appellant testified that he left Pakistan in XXXX of 2018, and that the agents continue to threaten his family members "all the time." The Appellant noted that the primary agent of persecution has a cousin who is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; however, he did not provide any documentary evidence or oral testimony as to where in Pakistan this individual works or with what XXXX XXXX he is employed. The Appellant noted that if he moved to another city, he would have to register with the local police as to where he was living, or else he could be arrested. Otherwise, the Appellant did not provide any testimony as to how his uncle would specifically be able to locate him if he were to return to Pakistan. [15] I note that the Appellant alleges that the reason the agents of persecution wanted to harm him was because of his sister's failure to assist in reducing the life sentence that a number of the perpetrators of her husband's murder received. However, in XXXX of 2018, the remainder of those in jail were released after the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the overturning of their convictions by the Pakistani High Court, finding there was reasonable doubt in the case in relation to the reliability of the eyewitnesses and lack of murder weapons found.5 The Appellant alleges that the perpetrators who are now out of jail now want revenge. He has provided two affidavits6 from a friend and his mother that note that these individuals continue to threaten both him and his sister. I note that none of the remaining family members in Pakistan have been harmed; however, I accept that the agents of persecution may continue to be motivated to harm the Appellant. [16] I must also consider whether the agent of persecution has the means to locate the claimants in the proposed IFA locations. Appellants bear the burden of establishing that their agent(s) of persecution has the means, including "contacts and resources" to pursue them.7 I have reviewed the testimony and the documentary evidence in this case and the Appellant has not provided sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate that the agents of persecution have the ability to find him throughout Pakistan. [17] While the Appellant has noted that the agents of persecution will find him no matter where he is in Pakistan, and notes his uncle has a cousin who is a high ranking police officer, I find that the Appellant has failed to advance evidence on where this police officer works and how the agent of persecution would use his connections in XXXX to locate the Appellant in any of the named IFA cities. Furthermore, the Appellant has failed to advance evidence on how the agents of persecution would even be aware that he had returned to Pakistan after a multiple-year absence. The Appellant argues that the RPD ignored the evidence that the police system throughout Pakistan is corrupt, noting that the documentary evidence states that one does not need to level an extreme level of influence to obtain police services for a price, "Pakistan's police are widely regarded as among the most abusive, corrupt and unaccountable institution of the state."8 The Appellant also notes that the police in Pakistan are overseen by a national Police Service, arguing that even if the uncle only had influence regionally with an officer, that officer could have access to the national service's information.9 [18] I have reviewed these documents and arguments and I am not persuaded by the Appellant's evidence in this regard. While I agree that there is no doubt that corruption is rife in the police services of Pakistan, the Appellant has not established a link between his uncle and how he would obtain information about his whereabouts in Pakistan if he should return. While the Appellant alleges the agents of persecution had traced him before, I note that he was located in Lahore in 2015; the city is a short distance from the Appellant's XXXX in XXXX. He was not returning to a new region of the country after a multi-year absence. Furthermore, while the documents note that the federal government maintains oversight of the police because it recruits and manages the officers, it is clear that Pakistan's provinces are directly responsible for law and order.10 I see no persuasive evidence before me that establishes that there is a national database that all police have access to, or that regional officers would have access to a system in another region of the country. In fact, the local police are under the jurisdiction of the individual provinces,11 and there are organizational shortcomings, including a lack of coordination with other law enforcement agencies and poor infrastructure.12 [19] The Appellant did not provide any persuasive objective evidence to link the agents of persecution to persons of influence in Pakistan. While he has testified that his uncle's cousin, XXXX XXXX, would be able to locate him, he has failed to provide information on where the XXXX works, or how he would be able to access information that would provide the location of the Appellant should he return to Pakistan. Furthermore, I note that despite his alleged connections, the primary agent of persecution was still arrested and stood trial for murder, spending time in jail. While I note that the judiciary is subject to external influences, the higher court and Supreme Court are generally viewed as effective.13 I agree with the RPD that this undermines the Appellant's allegation that his uncle wields a powerful level of influence in his community. [20] It is the Appellant's burden to provide evidence that their persecutors have the ability to locate them in the IFA location. The panel finds the Appellant has "not demonstrated by actual and concrete evidence that it is more than likely that they will be discovered"14 if he were to relocate to Karachi, Islamabad, or Hyderabad. [21] Pakistan is a large country with a population over 233 million covering an area of almost 800,000 sq. km.15 Karachi has 16 million people, while Islamabad has 1.2 million and Hyderabad has 6.8 million, respectively.16 The majority of the population, like the Appellant, are Sunni Muslims.17 Pakistani law provides for freedom of movement within the country, although violence in some areas can restrict this practice. The country's size and diverse make-up "generally allows for reasonable relocation options depending on the person's individual circumstances and the security situation in the area of relocation."18 The national language is Urdu,19 the Appellant's mother-tongue. [22] The Appellant testified that the agents of persecution would locate him through his address registration in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that the Appellant would have to register his address in his new city, I again find that the Appellant has not established a sufficient level of influence that would suggest that his uncle would be able to access his address through police contacts. Furthermore, the Appellant has not established that the information registered in one province of the country would be available to the police in his home province of Punjab. The documentary evidence notes that local police in Pakistan lack resources and technology.20 I find the allegation that this information is shared between local police forces to not be established. [23] I find the Appellant's allegations concerning the scope and reach of the agents of persecution to be speculative at best. The Appellant has not provided a rationale for why the agents would know he had returned to Pakistan or why they would know to search for him in any of the three proposed IFA locations. The proposed IFA locations are Reasonable [24] I have also considered the second prong of the IFA test, in light of the Appellant's personal circumstances. The panel is mindful that the Federal Court of Appeal has set a high threshold for the unreasonableness prong of the IFA test. Indeed, "it requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant."21 The Federal Court of Appeal has also been clear that the personal circumstances of a claimant must be central to the reasonableness analysis.22 [25] In assessing whether Karachi, Islamabad or Hyderabad are reasonable IFA locations, I have considered the Appellant's ability to travel safely to the IFA and to stay there without facing undue hardship. In relation to the Appellant's argument that he is dealing with agents of persecution who will find him anywhere in Pakistan, I have already found that this has not been established by the evidence. The Appellant has not established that the agents of persecution in this matter have the means to locate him throughout Pakistan. [26] The Appellant is a Sunni Muslim who speaks Urdu and Punjabi. The principal Appellant has a college diploma.23 The principal Appellant has operated the family farm, including the supervision of employees.24 The Appellant provided little testimony at the hearing about what difficulties he would face in the proposed IFA locations, other than being found by the agents of persecution. [27] I find given the Appellant's education and work experience, that he would, on a balance of probabilities, be able to find employment and have a stable source of income in the proposed locations. The documents note that "because of Pakistan's size and diversity, there are viable relocation options....internal relocations offers a degree of anonymity..."25 The same document notes that large urban centres such as Karachi and Islamabad provide better access to employment and access to services.26 I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established that he meets the threshold required to demonstrate that relocating to one of the IFA locations would be unreasonable or unduly harsh, having regard to all his circumstances. [28] The Court has been clear that "the hardship associated with relocation is not the kind that renders an IFA unreasonable."27 While I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by the Appellant in relocating to another city and that there would be a period of adjustment, I do not find this renders these locations unreasonable in his personal circumstances. A finding that a viable IFA exists in Pakistan means the Appellant would be safe in the IFA locations and it is reasonable for him to relocate there. The Appellant does not have to return to Pakistan through Lahore, and can fly directly to any of the proposed IFA locations, as they each have a major airport. Having considered all of the evidence, I find that it is reasonable for the Appellant to seek refuge in Karachi, Islamabad or Hyderabad. CONCLUSION [29] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act. (signed) Kimberley Foreman Kimberley Foreman December 26, 2020 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.). 3 Mayorga v. Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 987, at para. 31; Nimako v. Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 540, at para. 7. 4 Exhibit RPD-2, Corrected RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 108-123. 5 Exhibit RPD-2, Corrected RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 125-127. 6 Exhibit RPD-2, Corrected RPD Record, Exhibit 5, pp. 135-137. 7 Gonzalez Martinez v. Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 5, at para. 11. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 7, 9 Ibid. 10 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan, March 31, 2020, item 1.12. Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. July 2017. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., item 10.3. Police Reforms: Way Forward. Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan. January 14, 2019. 13 Ibid., item 1.12. 14 Momodu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1365, at paragraph 14. 15 NDP for Pakistan, March 31, 2020. item 1.5. ?Pakistan. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. February 7, 2020. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., item 1.12. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ranganathan v. Canada (MCI), 2000 CanLII 16789, at para. 14. 22 Rasaratnam v. Canada (MEI), [1992] 1 FC 706, at p. 710. 23 Exhibit RPD-2, Corrected RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 33. 24 Ibid. 25 NDP for Pakistan, March 31, 2020. item 1.12. 26 Ibid. 27 Okechukwu v. Canada (MCI), 2016 FC 1142, at para. 37. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-08412 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