TC1-13946

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-13946 TC1-13947 / TC1-13948 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Date of decision January 20, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Latoya Farrell Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Ian Wong Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant-PA) and his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX (Associate Appellant-AA), and their child, XXXX XXXX (Minor Male Appellant) are citizens of Pakistan. They are appealing the rejection of their refugee claims by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), alleging they face a serious possibility of persecution or would be subjected personally to a danger of torture or a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment of punishment in Pakistan at the hands of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), Al-Qaeda and members of their own family because the PA is a Shia convert. [2] The determinative issue in this appeal is Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). I dismiss the appeal and confirm the Decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention1 refugees nor persons in need of protection because they have a viable IFA in Hyderabad. BACKGROUND [3] The PA and AA are from Rawalpindi and were both raised Sunni Muslim. The PA's uncle is a XXXX XXXX in the XXXX in the district of Rawalpindi and is also the XXXX XXXX. The PA's uncle regularly delivered hate speeches targeting Shias and the PA found his family's overall extremist views upsetting. The PA's uncle's two sons-the PA's cousins-are also commanders in the XXXX. [4] Growing up the PA began to develop close relationships with Shias in his area. After reconnecting with a friend and given his positive experiences with other Shias, the PA began to appreciate the Shia faith. He began reading Shia books and following the teachings of Shia religious scholars. On XXXX XXXX, 2018, the Minor Male Appellant was born. He was given a Shia name. This angered the PA's family. [5] On XXXX XXXX, 2018, the PA officially converted to the Shia faith. The PA was confronted by his uncle, two cousins, and the PA's brothers about attending Shia religious services. The PA was assaulted by two males with long beards who threatened to kill him and accused him of dishonoring his family and the Sunni faith. On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the PA's brothers also assaulted him, kicked him out of the house, and ordered him not to return unless he accepted the Sunni faith. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the PA's friend informed him that the PA's uncle issued a fatwa against him and announced his conversion over a loudspeaker, accusing the PA of being an infidel and apostate. On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the PA received a threatening phone call from someone identifying himself as XXXX XXXX. The PA immediately reported this to the police who assured him they would investigate the matter. [7] On XXXX XXXX, 2019, the PA's friend informed him that members of the XXXX attacked the PA's hiding place in Rawalpindi. The PA was not home at the time. The Appellants were able to relocate to XXXX before fleeing to the United States on XXXX XXXX, 2019. They arrived in Canada on December 9, 2019, and claimed refugee protection the same day. The RPD Decision [8] The RPD found the Appellants allegations credible, but ultimately determined they had a viable IFA in Hyderabad. Absent any allegations on the Record, the RPD concluded the Appellants' fear of Al-Qaeda was speculative and did not benefit from the presumption of truth. [9] The RPD acknowledged the agents of harm were motivated to find the Appellants however, concluded they did not have the means to locate the Appellants in the IFA. Relying on the objective documentary evidence, the RPD found that the XXXX and XXXX do not have operations in Hyderabad, nor could the Appellants establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the agents of harm would be able to locate them using police databases, housing registry information, or employment records. [10] Finally, the RPD concluded that the agents of harm could not use familial relationships to locate the Appellants, nor were the Appellants at risk of harm in Hyderabad because of their religious beliefs. Furthermore, given their age, education, culture, language spoken, and lack of adverse medical conditions, the RPD determined it would not be unduly harsh for the Appellants to reside in Hyderabad. The Appellants' arguments [11] The Appellants argue that the RPD failed to consider the evidence respecting the treatment of similarly situated people and that the objective documentary evidence demonstrates that attacks against Shias take place in all regions of Pakistan. They further argue that the RPD ignored documentary evidence and underestimated the power of the PA's uncle (XXXX XXXX) and two cousins (XXXX XXXX) to locate the Appellants in the IFA. Finally, the Appellants argue that given the PA's religious profile as a Shia convert, the RPD erred in determining it was not objectively unreasonable for them to relocate to the proposed IFA. ANALYSIS Role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [12] The Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica2 held that I must review RPD decisions on a correctness standard respecting questions of law, fact, and mixed fact and law. The RAD may defer to the RPD's finding on credibility of oral testimony where the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing credibility. I have done an independent assessment of all the evidence before me and reviewed the RPD Decision on a standard of correctness as I find that the RPD did not have a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral testimony. Internal Flight Alternative [13] There are two prongs to the IFA analysis. The first deals with whether the Appellants face a serious possibility that they would be persecuted or subjected personally to a danger of torture, or a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA. The second prong of the test asks whether conditions in the proposed IFA are such that it would be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellants, for them to seek refuge there.3 The standard is a very high threshold and requires that the Appellants must demonstrate the presence of adverse conditions which would jeopardize their life and safety.4 If the Appellants can establish either prong of the test, then the proposed IFA is not viable. There is no serious possibility of persecution or likelihood of harm in Hyderabad [14] After conducting an independent assessment of the evidence, I find that the RPD was correct in determining that the Appellants do not face a serious possibility of persecution or likelihood of harm in Hyderabad. The Appellants have the onus of establishing the elements of their claim. The case law has established when assessing an IFA, I may consider, among other factors, the means and motivation of the agents of harm, the profile and influence of the agents of harm, family relationships, and the location and size of the IFA. [15] On appeal, the Appellants argue that the RPD's observations about the country conditions in Pakistan are largely irrelevant because they do not speak to people facing similar circumstances as the Appellants. I disagree with the Appellants because, absent evidence beyond speculation, the examination of objective documentary evidence can help to confirm or undermine the Appellants' assertions that the agents of harm could locate them anywhere in Pakistan. Furthermore, I find that the RPD sufficiently considered the treatment of Shias in Pakistan and the proposed IFA during its analysis. [16] I find that the RPD correctly concluded that the agents of harm more likely than not, do not have the means to locate the Appellants in the proposed IFA. Relying on the objective documentary evidence, the RPD determined that the XXXX and XXXX do not have operations in Hyderabad. The Appellants argue that the RPD failed to properly consider the level of power held by the PA's uncle and cousins in their respective extremist organizations. However, they have presented little information demonstrating how this power would enable them to locate the Appellants in Hyderabad given XXXX and XXXX's lack of operations there. [17] Furthermore, the Appellants provided little documentary evidence that demonstrates a link between the XXXX or XXXX and other extremist organizations that may operate in Hyderabad. Ultimately, beyond speculating that the XXXX or the XXXX can find them anywhere in Pakistan, the Appellants have presented little to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the agents of harm have the means to locate them in the proposed IFA. The case law has established that the presumption of truth does not apply to speculation. I find the RPD extensively canvassed the objective documentary evidence and I agree with its assessment. [18] At the RPD hearing, the PA testified that the agents of harm may locate him in the proposed IFA through the housing registry. I acknowledge that Pakistan has a tenant registration system in all four provinces.5 The purpose of this system is information gathering to help track persons of interest to the police and police may communicate with authorities in different provinces to accomplish this.6 The Appellants argue that rampant corruption in Pakistan means that police could easily leak the PA's personal information to the agents of harm. I note that the PA testified he is not wanted by the police, nor has he made any allegations against the police in Pakistan. Furthermore, in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative, the PA wrote that he reported the threatening phone call from XXXX XXXX to an Inspector who advised him they would "investigate the matter and arrest the culprit" demonstrating a willingness of state authorities to pursue the matter. [19] The case law has established that states are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens unless there is a complete breakdown and that a failure to meet this obligation must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.78 Absent of clear and convincing evidence, the Appellants want me to presume that the state is corrupt and the XXXX or the XXXX will be able to locate them through the police and unauthorized access to state databases. This contradicts the case law and would significantly undermine the principal of refugee protection as surrogate protection. Therefore, I agree with the RPD's finding that the Appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the agents of harm will successfully exploit the police or housing registry to locate them in Hyderabad. [20] At the RPD Hearing, the PA also testified that if he obtains new employment in Hyderabad, the agents of harm will be able to find him. The RPD concluded that there was no evidence that the XXXX or XXXX, primarily operating in Northern Sindh, would have access to information held by any employer in Hyderabad. I note that in 2017, the population of Hyderabad was roughly 1,732,893 people9 and the city is roughly a 14-hour drive from the Appellants' home region of Rawalpindi.10 Again, the Appellants have provided little, beyond speculation, to refute the objective documentary evidence, therefore, I find that seeking employment would not reasonably result in the disclosure of the Appellants' location in Hyderabad. [21] I agree with the RPD's conclusion that the Appellants' family are not a means of locating them in the proposed IFA. The PA testified that he has no contact with his family and has not spoken to them since XXXX 2019 when he and his family were kicked out of the house. According to his BOC narrative, the PA's brothers warned him not to return until he converts back to the Sunni faith. The AA's family has also cut ties with them because of the PA's religious conversion. As the Appellants are not in contact with their family, and their family have demonstrated no interest in locating them, I find that the Appellants are not at risk of being located or harmed by or through their family in Hyderabad. [22] I find the RPD was correct in concluding that, as a Shia convert, the PA would be able to safely engage in religious activities in the proposed IFA. While I acknowledge the objective documentary evidence highlights incidents of persecution faced by Shias in Pakistan, I am not prepared to accept the premise that all Shias will be persecuted or will be subjected personally to a likelihood of harm by virtue of their religious beliefs. Whether an IFA is reasonable must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the Appellants' personal circumstances. [23] Shias represent 10-15% of the population (roughly 20 to 50 million people) in Pakistan.11 Furthermore, despite being Sunni, the PA was able to find a Shia community and develop close relationships with Shias in his home region. While the information regarding treatment of Shia Muslims in Hyderabad is less comprehensive, sources in the NDP indicate that the city has a Sufi culture and "is very accepting of minorities."12 I am satisfied that the RPD considered all the evidence and provided sufficient reasons for its determination. I also agree that the Appellants have failed to demonstrate that they face a serious possibility of persecution, or on a balance of probabilities, will be subjected personally to a likelihood of harm in Hyderabad because the PA is a Shia convert. It is not objectively unreasonable for the Appellants to relocate to Hyderabad [24] The RPD was correct in determining that it would not be unduly harsh for the Appellants to relocate to Hyderabad. The RPD noted that the Appellants put forward very few specific allegations as to why they could not relocate to the proposed IFA. I also note that on appeal, the Appellants made few arguments against the RPD's conclusions. [25] The PA is of working age, has a university degree, has extensive work experience including being self-employed and working for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He speaks Urdu (Pakistan's National language), Punjabi, and some English.13 The AA also has a high school education and speaks Urdu. On appeal, the Appellants argue that the PA would not be free to discuss his history or religious conversion in Hyderabad. Again, I note, despite his Sunni upbringing, the PA was able to make friends and develop relationships with Shias throughout his lifetime.14 As noted above, Hyderabad is very accepting of minorities, and there is nothing to indicate that the PA will not be able to find a Shia community there or to openly engage in religious practices. [26] After reviewing the RPD's Decision, the Appellants arguments on appeal, the evidence on record and the NDP, I find that the Appellants have failed to establish that, considering their personal circumstances, relocation to Hyderabad would be objectively unreasonable. Consequently, I find they have a viable IFA in Pakistan. CONCLUSION [27] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the Decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because they have a viable IFA in Hyderabad. (signed) L. Farrell Latoya Farrell January 20, 2022 Date 1 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157. 3 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 FC 706 (FCA), at 710. 4 Ibid, at para. 15. 5 Exhibit RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (April 16, 2021), item 3.18: Tenant registration systems, including implementation; whether authorities share information on tenant registration (2015 - December 2017), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, at p. 2. 6 Ibid, at pp. 14-16. 7 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689, at 724-725. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Basis of Claim narrative, at p. 30, lines 107-110. 9 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP for Pakistan (April 16, 2021), item 1.12: Country Policy Information Note. Pakistan: Background information, including internal relocation. Version 3.0., United Kingdom. Home Office., at p. 10. 10 The case law has established that a search on Google Maps is not extrinsic evidence. In Gutierrez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 623, Mr. Justice de Montigny said: "Second, public documents available on the Internet about the situation in a country that originate from credible and known sources are not extrinsic evidence. These documents were easily accessible on the Internet, and the fact that the officer consulted them and referred to them without advising the applicant is not a breach of the duty of procedural fairness." 11 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP for Pakistan (April 16, 2021), item 1.5: Pakistan. The World Factbook, United States. Central Intelligence Agency., at p. 1. 12 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP for Pakistan (April 16, 2021), item 12.40: Differences between Shia [Shi'a, Shi'i] and Sunni Muslims; procedure to convert to Shi'ism; the situation and treatment of Shia Muslims by society and authorities, particularly in major cities (Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, Hyderabad); state response (2018-November 2020), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, at p. 9. 13 RPD Hearing Transcript (July 30, 2021), at p. 6, lines 26-38. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Basis of Claim narrative, at p. 27, lines 28-29, 36-39, and 31-42. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC1-13946 TC1-13947 / TC1-13948 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français