TB5-10152

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-10152 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision January 13, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Milton Israel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Peter J. Wuebbolt Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Pakistan, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). He has submitted new evidence in support of his claim, and he has requested an oral hearing. The Appellant further requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the determination of the RPD and find that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Alternatively, he requests that the matter be remitted to the RPD for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged he is a member of the Shia tradition and served as the XXXX XXXX of his local Shia majlis council from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He was also involved in religious and charitable activities. [4] On XXXX XXXX, 2004, he participated in a Shia procession which was attacked by Sunni militants. As a result, he resigned XXXX XXXX XXXX and moved to Islamabad where he lived from XXXX 2004 to XXXX 2005. He subsequently lived in XXXX from XXXX 2005 to XXXX 2006. During this period, he made many visits for events in his local majlis. [5] He moved to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from 2006 to 2014, and while there, he raised money to send to his Imam Bargah in Pakistan and to help Shia poor. While in the UAE, he returned to Pakistan 10-11 times. He also visited Greece in 2008 and Italy in 2013. [6] On XXXX XXXX, 2014, the Appellant alleged Sunni militants kidnapped his brother and questioned him as to the Appellant's whereabouts. His brother was released on XXXX 5, 2014. [7] The Appellant left Pakistan and travelled to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014. He fears Sunni militants and, in particular, the Sippah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP). The Minister [8] The Minister participated in the RPD hearing. The Issues [9] The panel indicated the determinative issue in this claim is credibility. [10] The Appellant submits the issues in this appeal are: a) Whether the panel ignored evidence properly before it? b) Whether the panel's decision is unreasonable? c) Did the panel make erroneous credibility findings? The Role of the RAD [11] While the IRPA sets out grounds for appeal as well as possible remedies, it does not specify the standard by which the RAD is to review the decision of the lower tribunal. [12] The RAD now has the benefit of Federal Court jurisprudence which speaks to the appellate tribunal's role in relation to that of the RPD. [13] In this regard, the Court, in Huruglica, considered the appropriate relationship between the RAD and the RPD.1 In Huruglica, the Court determined that the RAD is to conduct a "hybrid appeal". It is to review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the Appellant's refugee claim, deferring to the RPD only where the lower tribunal enjoys a particular advantage in reaching a conclusion. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own determination. [14] The Court determined that, in conducting its assessment, the RAD can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion. The RAD is, however, not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on the facts only where there is a "palpable and overriding error". [15] The RAD will review all of the evidence in the RPD's record and come to its own independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Admissibility of Evidence Presented on Appeal [16] Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his/her claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he/she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection of the claim. [17] The Appellant disclosed as new evidence a copy of his father's death certificate.2 The Appellant submits that, had this evidence been available in the RPD hearing, it would have assisted the panel in making the finding that he was credible in the testimony he provided. [18] The RAD notes this document was issued on May 25, 2015, and the panel's decision was made on September 1, 2015. The RAD finds that this document was reasonably available to the Appellant before the rejection of his claim, and therefore the document does not meet the statutory requirement noted above. The RAD notes in addition that evidence regarding the Appellant's father's illness was available in the hearing, and it was not challenged by the panel. The RAD finds therefore that this new evidence is not material to the central issue in this claim. The document is not admitted. Application for an Oral Hearing [19] The Appellant asks that an oral hearing be held pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. Section 110(3) of the IRPA requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD's record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the Appellant. According to subsection 110(6), the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant that is central to the RPD's decision, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. The RAD notes that no new evidence in support of this claim has been admitted. Therefore, the request for an oral hearing is dismissed. The Panel's Credibility Concerns Demeanour [20] The panel found the Appellant not to be a good witness. The panel noted the Appellant often responded to questions "tortuously"3 and found the Appellant to be evasive in response to the Minister's question as to whether he ever approached the police. The panel drew a negative inference in this regard. The XXXX 2014 Procession [21] The Appellant alleged he participated in this procession while he was XXXX XXXX XXXX his local majlis, and in the attack a colleague was killed. The Appellant provided a number of documents4 to corroborate his involvement in the procession. [22] The panel found a letter from the current secretary general of the majlis to be "problematic". The panel noted a copy of the letter5 was disclosed at the first sitting of the hearing. The panel was informed that the original was being couriered, but ultimately it was lost. At the second sitting of the hearing, a second original was provided.6 The panel questioned the Appellant in this regard, and the Appellant explained that, as a precaution, he had asked his brother to obtain two identical originals in case one was lost. [23] The panel considered it more likely that, if the Appellant had concerns about possible loss of the initial letter, he would simply have asked his brother to make a photocopy of the letter. The panel found that the original having gone astray, the Appellant had someone create another, and the authenticity of the replacement copy is in doubt. [24] The Appellant also provided an original newspaper account of the incident.7 The panel asked the Appellant to show the interpreter where his name appeared in the original newspaper article, and he provided interpretation as follows: "Armed SSP persons attacked a procession in which XXXX XXXX XXXX was present and beaten by a cane; police report has been filed."8 [25] The panel noted that this statement did not appear in the certified translation provided by the Appellant. The Appellant explained that it could be a "mistake of the translator".9 [26] The panel stated that it had further reason to doubt the purported press account. The panel cited country documentary evidence which indicates that fraudulent documents are easily available in Pakistan, including newspaper articles.10 The panel indicated, in the context of the doubtful translation and the apparent ease of publishing false newspaper accounts in Pakistan, it gave no weight to the newspaper account provided by the Appellant. The Fate of Other XXXX XXXX [27] The panel noted that the Appellant indicated he was at risk at the hands of Sunni militants because he had a profile while serving as XXXX XXXX of his local Shia majlis. The panel further noted that the Appellant conceded that his predecessors in this office had no difficulties with extremists. He subsequently stated that other officers and his father had received threats over the past 10 years.11 [28] The panel found the apparent safety of other local majlis officials to be incongruous when compared to the alleged experiences of the Appellant. The panel drew a negative inference in this regard. Return Visits from Islamabad and XXXX [29] The Appellant testified he made return visits to his local majlis but kept a low profile. The panel indicated it could not understand why he would think he was safe in doing this when he indicated he was at risk from Sunni militants throughout Pakistan. The panel found that the Appellant's actions in revisiting his home suggested a lack of subjective fear and drew a negative inference in this regard. Activities in the UAE [30] The Appellant alleged that he raised money in the UAE which he remitted to his Imam XXXX in Pakistan. The panel noted that the Appellant failed to provide any documentation12 showing receipts and dispersal of funds to corroborate this activity. The panel found the lack of documentation unreasonable and drew a negative inference in this regard. Failure to claim elsewhere [31] The panel noted the Appellant visited Greece in 2008 and Italy in 201313 but did not make a claim for protection. The panel further noted these countries are signatories to the Convention relating to the Status of refugees. The panel indicated the Appellant's actions suggests a lack of subjective fear and drew a negative inference in this regard. Return visits from the UAE [32] The panel noted the Appellant acknowledged that, during his 8 years of residence in the UAE, he visited Pakistan 10-11 times for six weeks to two months at a time.14 He stayed in Islamabad most of the time but also visited his home village. The Appellant explained that he had initially gone to Dubai to find work and seek a better life and not because of any danger or threats to his life. The panel noted this was contrary to the Appellant's statement on page 2 of his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative where he stated that, after XXXX 2004, "I would keep a low profile and I was under pressure..."15 [33] The panel stated that the Appellant's actions in returning from the UAE to Pakistan on multiple occasions were indicative of a lack of subjective fear and raised doubt concerning the Appellant's credibility. The panel drew a negative inference in this regard. The Appellant's Brother's Kidnapping [34] The Appellant alleged he returned to Pakistan in XXXX 2014 to visit his ill father.16 After he arrived in Pakistan, he was informed that his brother had been kidnapped. The Appellant indicated this changed everything, and his enemies started asking about him again. The Appellant alleged his brother's kidnappers knew he had remitted funds to his community while living in Dubai. He further alleged that the kidnappers pressured his brother to reveal his whereabouts. His brother was released in XXXX 2014. [35] The panel did not find the alleged kidnapping and release credible. The panel noted if one of the reasons for the kidnapping was to find out the Appellant's whereabouts, it did not make sense that he was released without obtaining this information. The panel further noted that there was no medical documentary evidence even though the Appellant testified his brother was very weak due to starvation. The panel noted as well that the kidnapping was not reported to the police, and there were no press accounts in any reputable publications.17 Failure to Report to the Police [36] The panel noted the Appellant acknowledged he never reported any of the threats he received to the police. The Appellant explained that the police never responded when complaints were made by his religious community. The panel found that, if the Appellant were really afraid, it would have been reasonable for him to approach the police and seek assistance.18 Delay in Leaving Pakistan [37] The panel noted that the Appellant delayed leaving Pakistan from XXXX XXXX, 2014, when his brother was allegedly released until XXXX XXXX, 2014. 19 The Appellant explained that his father and community elders told him to stay. The Appellant further stated he stayed in Islamabad, maintained a low profile, and he was not molested by Sunni militants. [38] The panel found that the Appellant's failure to leave Pakistan expeditiously suggested a lack of subjective fear and drew a negative inference in this regard. Port of Entry Statements and Acceptance of an Offer to Withdraw [39] The panel asked the Appellant in the first sitting of the hearing: "Did you misrepresent yourself as a visitor at the airport/port of entry?" The Appellant responded: "I was mentally confused and I didn't know what I said..." The Appellant further stated: "I did not tell them about the threats to my life at the time because I thought they would send me back..."20 [40] The panel noted that the Appellant stated at the POE that he had no fear of return to Pakistan and that he voluntarily agreed to withdraw his application for entry to Canada. [41] The Appellant stated that, while he had come to Canada to make a claim for protection, he believed he could only do so inland and not at the POE. He further stated he was nervous, had been travelling for 30 hours, and he expected mistreatment as he had experienced at the hands of police in Pakistan. He further stated he was worried, confused and did not know what he was doing.21 [42] The panel rejected these explanations and noted that the Appellant is a 35-year-old man who has completed five years of high school. The panel further noted that the Appellant had lived abroad on a work permit for 8 years in Dubai and had travelled internationally to Greece and Italy. The panel noted as well that the Appellant was an experienced traveller when he approached a Canadian immigration officer as a purported visitor. [43] The panel found that none of the statements made by the Appellant at the POE can be described as straightforward, and it concluded that his words and deeds suggest that he is not telling a credible story. The Appellant's Submissions and Argument [44] The Appellant submits that the panel ignored documentary evidence indicating the dangers faced by minority religious communities in Pakistan and the fact that they do not receive police protection. [45] The Appellant further submits that the panel completely ignored his testimony in assessing the issues of state protection, delay, re-availment and failure to claim elsewhere. The Appellant also submits the panel's line of reasoning in regard to these issues was unreasonable and perverse. [46] The Appellant submits as well that the panel's finding that he "responded tortuously" and "was being evasive"22 was unreasonable and constitutes an error in law. [47] The Appellant submits that the panel failed to properly consider the documentary evidence submitted in support of his claim. The Appellant notes in this regard that his actions in securing two sets of original documents were criticized and rejected by the panel. [48] The Appellant notes there were other documents23 couriered from Pakistan that are supportive of his claim. These include a letter from the XXXX XXXX Al-Eman Society of Canada who personally knows the Appellant and certified that he was the XXXX XXXX of the Shia Majlis Council of XXXX, that he was attacked in a religious procession in 2004 and that there is a constant threat to the Appellant's life. [49] The Appellant further notes a letter24 from four Shia Muslim community members in the UAE who were aware of the Appellant's charitable work in Pakistan, the threat to the Appellant's life and the kidnapping of his brother and his release after a ransom was paid. In addition, there is a letter25 from the Imam Hussein Mosque in Dubai identifying the Appellant as a Shia Muslim. [50] The Appellant submits it is a reviewable error for the panel to engage in selective analysis of evidence that supports its conclusions while ignoring contradicting evidence. [51] The Appellant notes that the panel drew a negative inference from his failure to provide financial accounting documents concerning his charitable work in the UAE. The Appellant argues the panel failed to consider that he came to Canada fearing persecution in Pakistan, and he did not have access to donation receipts or financial statements. The Appellant submits he did what he could to procure documentation while he was in Canada. [52] The Appellant also notes letters from Mr. XXXX XXXX and Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX which were submitted as evidence.26 Return Visits to His Home Town from Islamabad and XXXX [53] The Appellant notes that the panel found these visits reflected a lack of subjective fear. The Appellant submits that he acted on instructions of his community members when moving out of town, that he was not hiding and kept a low profile. The Appellant further notes he also returned to Pakistan from the UAE. The Appellant submits he only feared for his life when his brother was kidnapped by religious extremists. [54] The Appellant submits the panel engaged in analysis of extremely minor discrepancies in his evidence. The Appellant further submits that he provided an original Urdu language newspaper account27 of the 2004 procession and it appears that the certified translation was not properly done and it corroborated his oral and written statements. The Appellant notes as well that the panel cited evidence concerning the availability of fraudulent documents in Pakistan. The Appellant argues the panel engaged in a perverse line of reasoning and made unreasonable findings. [55] The Appellant submits that the panel engaged in an exercise in which they simply dismissed the Appellant's oral and documentary evidence and made negative credibility findings. The Appellant argues the panel engaged in an exercise of bias that constitutes an error in law. The RAD's Analysis and Findings [56] The RAD has reviewed all of the evidence in the RPD's record concerning the jeopardy of minority religious communities in Pakistan. Country documentary evidence28 indicates that Shias have experienced militant attacks and continue to do so. It is further noted that the justice system is weak in Pakistan, and there is corruption in government institutions including the police.29 However, the Pakistani government has made efforts to suppress Sunni militancy against Shias, including the banning of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and there has been a resulting decline in militancy in recent years. However, sectarian attacks continue in various parts of the country.30 Recently, the government has made an appointment of a special advisor for minority affairs. While incidents continue, they are episodic, and there is no evidence that the majority of Shias, approximately 25 percent of Pakistan's population, are unable to live peaceful lives in spite of the challenges. [57] The RAD notes that the Pakistani government has implemented measures to protect the population at large against militants and terrorist groups. The police have arrested would-be suicide bombers in major cities across the country. The RAD finds that country documentary evidence regarding state protection in Pakistan is mixed. While there is substantial evidence of corruption and lack of response to violent sectarian incidents, there is also evidence that the police do respond in some incidents, and that the courts do hand down convictions. Police effectiveness varies greatly by district, ranging from reasonably good to ineffective, and country documentary evidence indicates there have been improvements in police professionalism.31 The state has provided police support to strengthen security in Lahore and Multan during times of sectarian tension and Ashura processions have been protected by a special police squad.32 [58] Pakistan is a federal republic, and there has been a peaceful transition of government following recent elections, and police generally report to civilian authorities. In a recent decision concerning a Shia Muslim, the Federal Court in Cheema33 found that the RPD's conclusions on the availability of state protection were reasonable. The Court noted the RPD found the applicant made insufficient efforts to test the availability of state protection and therefore failed to rebut the presumption of state protection. The RPD noted the applicant explained that he did not believe the police would protect him due to past experiences his family had with the police. The RPD found that state protection was available to the applicant in large urban centres, and the Court found this finding was reasonable. [59] The RAD notes in regard to the case at bar, the Appellant failed to contact the police concerning the threats he received from militants. The Appellant explained that the police never responded to complaints made by his community. The panel found that, if the Appellant were really afraid, it would have been reasonable for him to approach the police and seek assistance. The RAD finds, in the context of the analysis above, that it concurs with the panel's finding in this regard. [60] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the evidence concerning the panel's findings in regard to state protection, delay, re-availment and failure to claim elsewhere. The RAD notes the Appellant submits that the panel ignored his testimony concerning these issues and further submits that the panel's reasoning was unreasonable and perverse.34 The RAD notes as well that the Appellant makes no supporting argument but simply states the panel ignored his testimony. The RAD finds that there is no evidence to support this submission. [61] In regard to state protection, the RAD notes that the panel referred to the Appellant's explanation for not contacting the police. The RAD has reviewed and assessed this issue above. [62] In regard to re-availment, the RAD notes that the Appellant acknowledged he returned to Pakistan 10-11 times during his 8 years residence in the UAE. The Appellant explained he moved to Dubai to seek work and not because of any danger or threats to his life. The RAD further notes that the panel indicated the Appellant's testimony was contrary to his BOC statement: "I would keep a low profile and I was under pressure..."35 [63] The RAD notes as well that the letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX36 disclosed by the Appellant indicates that the Appellant left his home and moved to Islamabad and XXXX to avoid threats and harm from Sunni extremists. In addition, the Appellant's father37 indicates that, due to threats by Sunni terrorists and the attack on the procession, the Appellant moved to Islamabad, XXXX and later to the UAE. [64] The RAD concurs with the panel's finding that the Appellant's actions in returning to Pakistan multiple times from the UAE is indicative of a lack of subjective fear and raises a doubt concerning the Appellant's credibility. [65] In regard to the Appellant's delay in leaving Pakistan when he already held a Canadian visitor's visa and when he believed his life was in jeopardy, the RAD notes that the Appellant's brother was released on XXXX XXXX, 2014, but the Appellant did not leave Pakistan until XXXX XXXX, 2014.38 The RAD notes the Appellant stated he delayed leaving Pakistan because his father and members of the community told him to stay. The RAD is not persuaded by this explanation and finds the panel did not err in finding that the Appellant's failure to leave as soon as he was able to do so raises a doubt as to his subjective fear. [66] The RAD has reviewed the Appellant's testimony and while acknowledging that his answers to questions were sometimes indirect and unnecessarily lengthy, the RAD agrees with the Appellant that the panel's generalization that he responded "tortuously" and that he was "evasive", and as a result he was not a good witness, is unreasonable. The RAD finds the panel's negative inference in this regard is not supported by the evidence. [67] In regard to the letter from the current secretary general of the local majlis39 and the Appellant's disclosure of a second original after the first was lost, the RAD agrees with the panel's concern that the preparation of two original letters is unlikely. The RAD finds however that there is insufficient evidence to support the panel's finding that the Appellant simply had someone else prepare a replacement copy. The RAD notes that the Appellant has provided a number of other letters that confirm he was present at the XXXX 2004 procession. [68] The RAD has reviewed all of the documentary evidence provided by the Appellant. The RAD notes that the letter XXXX XXXX XXXX of the Al-Eman Society of Canada40 indicates that the Appellant served XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX Shia majlis council, he was attacked in 2004 and was constantly under threat. The RAD notes that the Appellant's evidence regarding his XXXX in the majlis has not been challenged. The RAD further notes that no evidence has been provided to indicate the letter writer has first-hand knowledge of the XXXX 2004 incident or of alleged continuing threats. The RAD finds that whatever information the letter writer has in this regard has likely been provided by the Appellant. [69] The RAD finds the letter signed by four persons from the UAE confirms that the Appellant raised funds in the UAE to send to Pakistan. The RAD notes that the additional information in the letter concerning Sunni extremists who want to harm the Appellant, and also regarding the kidnapping of his brother, is not based on first-hand experience but likely the result of information provided by the Appellant, like the letter noted above. [70] The RAD notes the letter from the Imam XXXX Mosque in Dubai identifies the Appellant as a Shia Muslim. The RAD further notes that the Appellant's Shia identity has not been challenged. [71] The RAD notes the panel does not refer to any of these letters, but there is no evidence that this reflects selective analysis of the evidence. The RAD finds that none of these letters provide personal knowledge concerning the central issue in this case, that the Appellant has been personally targeted by Sunni extremists. The RAD gives these letters little evidentiary weight. [72] In regard to the lack of financial documentation concerning the Appellant's charity work in the UAE, the RAD finds it was open to the panel to draw a negative inference from the lack of any corroborative documentation concerning funds raised and dispersed. The RAD further finds the Appellant's submission that he came to Canada fearing persecution, and he did not have access to donation receipts and financial statements is not persuasive. The RAD notes the Appellant's hearing took place on November 25, 2014 and January 14, 2015, and the RPD decision was made on September 1, 2015. The RAD finds that the Appellant had adequate opportunity to obtain this documentation either before the RPD's decision was made or as new evidence in support of his appeal. The RAD concurs with the panel's finding in this regard. [73] The RAD has reviewed letters from Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX41 and Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX.42 The RAD notes the panel makes no comment regarding these letters, but there is no evidence that it was not aware of them and did not consider them when making its decision. [74] The RAD notes that the XXXX letter simply reviews the information provided by the Appellant concerning his role in the local majlis and his charitable work in the UAE. The RAD notes that there is no evidence that the letter writer has first-hand knowledge regarding who allegedly kidnapped the Appellant's brother. The RAD further notes that no evidence was provided that the letter writer has first-hand knowledge that Sunni extremists have threatened to kill the Appellant and that his life is in danger in Pakistan. The RAD gives this letter little weight as to the central issue in this appeal. [75] The RAD notes that the XXXX XXXX letter also contains information provided by the Appellant concerning his community work in his home village and in the UAE. The RAD finds that the letter writer's assertion that the kidnappers of the Appellant's brother knew that the Appellant had travelled to Pakistan and that his brother was kidnapped in order to get to the Appellant is unsupported by any evidence and is speculation. The RAD gives this letter little weight in regard to the central issue in this appeal. [76] The RAD notes that the Appellant challenges the panel's finding that his return visits to his home village from Islamabad and XXXX reflected a lack of subjective fear. The Appellant submits that he acted on instructions from the community, and he kept a low profile. The RAD notes however that the Appellant indicated he returned in order to participate in Shia community activities. The RAD finds it strains credulity that the community would instruct the Appellant to return to his village if, as he alleges, his life was in danger. The RAD further finds that it was open to the panel to find that the Appellant's return to his village when he feared for his life suggested a lack of subjective fear. [77] The RAD notes that the panel found the alleged kidnapping and release not to be credible. The RAD has reviewed all of the evidence regarding the kidnapping and finds the panel's analysis in support of this finding to be persuasive. The RAD notes, as did the panel, that the kidnappers released his brother without obtaining information regarding the Appellant's whereabouts but after a ransom was paid. The RAD further notes that there is no corroborative evidence regarding the kidnapping, such as a medical report for his brother who was allegedly abused by the kidnappers, or a police report. The kidnapping was not reported to the police. Neither was there a press account of a significant incident which would likely have been noted in the press. [78] The RAD notes that the Appellant returned to Pakistan and his home village 10-11 times during his 8-year residence in the UAE. The RAD further notes that the Appellant indicated he only feared for his life when his brother was kidnapped. The RAD has considered this evidence above. The RAD further notes in regard to the kidnapping, which allegedly was arranged by Sunni extremists to find the Appellant, that the Appellant provided multiple opportunities for his alleged enemies to find him during his 10-11 visits to Pakistan and his home village over an 8-year period. [79] The RAD finds, on the basis of the analysis above, that the Appellant's allegation that his brother was kidnapped by Sunni extremists in order for them to find the Appellant is simply not credible. [80] The RAD has reviewed the evidence concerning the newspaper article describing the XXXX XXXX, 2014 incident.43 The RAD finds the discrepancy in the translation provided by the Appellant, indicating he was specifically attacked, is sufficient to raise a doubt concerning the Appellant's truthfulness. The RAD notes the issue is not whether the XXXX XXXX, 2004 incident took place but, rather, whether the Appellant was particularly targeted. The translated document in the RPD's record makes no comment regarding a particular attack on the Appellant. The RAD finds there is insufficient evidence to find that the article in the Appellant's record is authentic. [81] The RAD has reviewed the totality of evidence in the RPD's record including the evidence provided by the Appellant and the panel's Reasons. The RAD finds no evidence that the panel engaged in "an exercise of bias that constitutes an error in law".44 [82] The RAD further finds, on the basis of its review and assessment of the totality of the evidence, that there is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to support a finding that the Appellant is at risk of persecution or that there is a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a risk of torture if he were to return to Pakistan. DISPOSITION [83] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the RPD's determination that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Milton Israel" Milton Israel January 13, 2016 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at pp. 83-84. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, Reasons, at pp. 7-8. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, exhibit 6 and exhibit 8. 5 Ibid., exhibit 6, at p. 229. 6 Ibid., exhibit 6, at p. 234. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, exhibit 8, at pp. 236-4237. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, Reasons, at p. 9. 9 Ibid. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (14 March, 2014), item 3.6. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, Reasons, at p. 11. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, Reasons, at pp. 11-12, paras. 41-43. 13 Ibid., at p. 12. 14 Ibid. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, exhibit 2, Basis of Claim, at p.29. 16 Ibid. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, Reasons, at p. 13. 18 Ibid. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, Reasons, at p. 13. 20 Ibid., at p. 14. 21 Ibid., at p. 15. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, Memorandum, at p. 89. 23 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at pp. 50-52. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 51. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 52. 26 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record at pp. 54-55. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, exhibit 8, at pp. 236-237. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (14 March, 2014), item 2.4. 29 Ibid., items 2.1 and 10.1. 30 Ibid., Item 12.1. 31 Ibid., item 2.1. 32 Ibid., item 12.5. 33 Cheema, Jafar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4285-13), LeBlanc, April 10, 2015, 2015 FC 441. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, Memorandum, at p. 88. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, BOC narrative, p. 49. 36 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, p.54. 37 Ibid., p. 56. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's record, Reasons, at pp. 13-14. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD record, exhibit 6, at pp. 229 and 234. 40 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 50. 41 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 54. 42 Ibid., at p.55. 43 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, at p. 59. 44 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's record, Memorandum, at p. 93. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-10152