MC0-09745

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-09745 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 23, 2021 Date de la décision Panel R. Seyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jeffrey Nadler 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 [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant) argues that the Refugee Protection Division (the RPD) was wrong to deny his claim for refugee protection. [2] He fears return to his country of citizenship, Pakistan, because he converted from Sunni to Shia Islam and therefore is being threatened by militants. Determination [3] I confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [4] The determinative issue is internal flight alternative (IFA). Allegations [5] While employed in the Middle East in 2000, the appellant converted from Sunni to Shia Muslim. In 2010, the appellant married a Shia woman. This resulted in death threats. [6] In XXXX 2018, he returned to Pakistan from Abu Dhabi where he was working. He paid some monies to buy land, but instead was defrauded. The appellant was threatened with death and kidnapping. He attempted to report this to the police. Instead, he was arrested and released only after he paid a bribe. They kidnapped his son. The appellant paid a ransom for the release of his son. [7] In XXXX 2018, the appellant traveled to the United States of America (the USA). In XXXX, he traveled to Canada, where he made a refugee claim. The Role of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) [8] I am required to examine the record independently and determine if the RPD arrived at the correct decision.1 I must consider the admissibility of the new evidence and decide whether to convene an oral hearing if I admit the new evidence. No new evidence; no oral hearing [9] The appellant is not submitting any new evidence. Nor is he requesting an oral hearing. [10] I do not have jurisdiction to convene an oral hearing as I have not admitted any new evidence. The RPD made the correct decision with respect to the first prong of the IFA test a. The RPD did not hold the appellant to an unreasonable standard of proof [11] The appellant argues that the RPD held him to a higher standard or a standard of perfection when it found that he would be safe in the proposed IFAs of Islamabad and Karachi. [12] The RPD found that there was "no proof whatsoever" that the appellant is on the hitlist of the SSP (Sipah-e-Sahaba) and the police. The appellant argues that this finding is in error as a claimant is not required to provide documentary proof and because the RPD did not properly apply the presumption of truth. Furthermore, the RPD did not consider the appellant's supporting documentation. [13] The RPD was incorrect in its choice of words, but this statement is not determinative in my final analysis. There is some evidence that the appellant is on a hitlist (his oral testimony), but there is no documentary evidence that the SSP maintain a hitlist, which is defined as a list of individuals to be killed for political or criminal reasons. [14] The RPD did not ask the appellant for a copy of the hitlist and did not make a negative inference with respect to his failure to produce one. The appellant's argument that the RPD held him to higher standard/a standard of perfection is unfounded. [15] The appellant's testimony is that his encounters with the police and the SSP are limited to Gujarat in 2018. There is no evidence that the SSP continue to search for the appellant either in Gujarat, Punjab or in any other place in Pakistan. The appellant did not state that the SSP visit his family or his wife's family to ascertain his whereabouts. There is no evidence that they are aware that the appellant has left the country. [16] Therefore, the appellant's statement that they are motivated to locate him throughout the country is speculative. His own evidence is devoid of this motivation on part of his persecutors. b. The RPD did not misapprehend the appellant's Shia profile [17] The appellant argues that the RPD misapprehended the appellant's Shia profile. It treated him as an ordinary Shia, but he is not. He is a Sunni to Shia convert and attempted to buy some land to give to the Imambargah. [18] I agree with the RPD that the appellant is not a high-profile Shia though I arrive at this conclusion through an independent review of the evidence. [19] 96% of Pakistan's 207 million people are Muslim, 80 - 85% are Sunni and 15 - 20% are Shia.2 Shia live throughout Pakistan. Shia are represented in all walks of life in Pakistan and have held prominent and influential positions, though they can be targeted by some extremist Sunni groups. In cities, Sunni and Shia communities are integrated. Islamabad and Karachi are cities in Pakistan. Hazara and Turi Shia live in enclaves. 3 The appellant is neither Hazara nor Turi. There are large Shia communities in Karachi and in Islamabad.4 [20] Karachi has seen a decrease in targeted killings against Shia since operations launched by the state. in 2017 and 2018, authorities provided protection to Shia during religious processions. While some Shia activists are abducted or disappeared by security forces5, the appellant's agents of persecution are not state actors. Nor is he an activist. [21] The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade found no systemic discrimination against Shia. Shia may be vulnerable to attack at religious gatherings and en route to pilgrimages to Iran and Iraq. 6 [22] While there may be some sectarian violence against Shia in Pakistan, it is not against all Shia generally. While some high-profile Shia may be targeted, there is nothing in the appellant's profile to suggest that he would be targeted. He is not a religious leader, a journalist, a teacher, a doctor, or a Shia activist. [23] Majority of the targeted attacks against Shia take place in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.7 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a province plagued by militant violence. It borders the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Afghanistan. Karachi is in the province Punjab. Islamabad is part of the Islamabad Capital Territory. [24] Certain communities within the Shia (the Hazara and Ismailis, for example) are more often targeted by sectarian violence. The appellant is not Hazara, Ismaili or a member of another targeted community. Shia attend school and are employed. They have places of worship and participate in public life in Pakistan. [25] In 2018, there were 91 fatalities from sectarian violence compared to 324 in 2017. The Pakistani state has reduced sectarian violence through initiatives and the visible presence of paramilitary Rangers.8 [26] Finally, the evidence establishes that most Pakistani Shia are not physically or linguistically distinguishable from Pakistani Sunni.9 There is no evidence that the appellant will be identified as a Sunni-to-Shia convert in the IFAs. The RPD's analysis on state protection is not inadequate or unreasonable [27] The appellant argues that the RPD was selective in the documentation used by the RPD with respect to state protection. [28] State protection is not an issue in this claim. The determinative issue is IFA, which means that while I find the appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Gujarat, Punjab, he does not face a serious possibility of persecution of the proposed of IFAs. [29] Therefore, state protection is not determinative. I will not be making a finding on the adequacy of state protection. The agents of persecution: the SSP or ASWJ [30] Pakistan is home to several militant extremist groups with diverse goals. Some attack the Pakistani state, such as the Taliban, while others are sectarian, such as the Punjabi Taliban, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (the LeJ) and the Sipah-e-Sahaba (the SSP). The LeJ and the SSP (also known as Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat or ASWJ) are anti-Shia organizations. 10 [31] The SSP have been banned by the state in the past. 11 They wish to eliminate Shia and other religious minorities in Pakistan. Their goal is a Sunni state.12 [32] The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report from February 2019 states that each year the frequency of sectarian attacks has reduced since the launch of military operations in 2014. In 2013, there were 131 incidents of sectarian violence (killing 558 and injuring 987), and in 2017, 16 incidents (killing 231 and injuring 691). In 2018, there were 12 incidents.13 [33] In 2014, the state launched a military offensive called Zarb-e-Azb to address the security situation in Pakistan, which resulted in a broad downward trend in violence. 14 The offensives targeted militants in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas15 but have resulted in a decrease in sectarian attacks throughout Pakistan. Zarb-e-Azb was followed by another military offensive, Radd-ul-Fasaad.16 [34] In a December 2018 report, the United States Military Academy reports that the ASWJ were previously known as the SSP. The SSP was formed in 1985 and was also a political party. In 2012, the SSP was banned. The group rebranded itself as the ASWJ and is trying to rebuild itself as a political party. In 2018, the ban was lifted and the ASWJ had 150 candidates participate in the 2018 elections. The author of the report, an assistant professor at United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, is of the opinion that the political ambitions of the ASWJ will create incentives to steer clear of openly engaging in violent acts.17 [35] From this I conclude that the level of sectarian violence is decreasing, likely due to the ASWJ attempting to rebrand itself and the military offences against the extremist groups. The more recent information in the NDP states that the violence is decreasing. [36] While the SSP has connections with other militant organizations, there is no evidence to suggest that they have called in their allies to locate the appellant. He has not been formally accused of blasphemy. Nor has a religious edict (a fatwa) been issued against him. There is no evidence to suggest that the SSP have disseminated the appellant's identity throughout Pakistan in their efforts to locate him. [37] The appellant did testify that the SSP had caused the police to issue a First Information Report (an FIR) against him. The RPD did not find this allegation credible as the appellant had omitted the FIR from his Basis of Claim narrative. The appellant is not contesting this finding. I agree with the RPD that the appellant's explanation for this omission is not reasonable. [38] The appellant explained that "mentally, I did not know" and when the RPD repeated his statement, he replied "because of the worries that I had regarding my children, I did not understand it."18 This is not a reasonable explanation. This alleged FIR is an important piece of evidence as it could be entered into the police records, which would drastically alter the appellant's profile. Finally, I note that the appellant submitted an amended narrative, wherein he explained his situation further but made no mention of this FIR.19 [39] I agree with the RPD that there is no FIR registered against the appellant. The appellant's arguments that the SSP will be able to locate him through the tenant registration system is without merit [40] The appellant argues that the SSP will be able to locate him through the tenant registration system. While he argues this under the second prong of the IFA test (reasonableness), I consider it to be a part of the first prong (whether the appellant will be safe from his agents of persecution in the IFAs). [41] Any rental agreement is to be registered with the appropriate authorities (the local police in most cases). Non-Registration has resulted in criminal charges against renters and landlords.20 [42] Islamabad police have launched an online registration system for its residents. The province of Sindh makes the registration of tenants and guests in hotels etc. compulsory. Provincial police authorities have access to the registration system (mostly electronic), which can be shared across the provincial borders. 21 [43] The appellant argues that the police are corrupt; therefore, the SSP will be able to locate him. I have found that the SSP have the means to locate the appellant throughout Pakistan. I also find that the appellant's evidence does not establish that they are motivated to find him. [44] While the police have the means to locate him, they are not his agents of persecution. The appellant has had some encounters with the police, but they are not his agents of persecution. State authorities may use militant organizations to carry out attacks against individuals, 22 but the appellant's persecutors are not the state. The appellant's testimony is also devoid of examples of similarly-situated individuals who were located throughout Pakistan. [45] I find the appellant's arguments that the SSP will locate him through the tenant registration system to be without basis. There is no evidence that his persecutors have made any efforts to locate him since XXXX 2018. I find that the proposed IFAs are reasonable [46] The appellant has raised no arguments with respect to the reasonableness of the IFAs. He is an Urdu speaker, which is one of the official languages of Pakistan. 23 He does not have a post-secondary education. Nevertheless, he is a resourceful individual. He has worked as a XXXX XXXX in the Middle East and in Canada. [47] I have looked at the circumstances of the appellant. I find there is no evidence that the proposed IFAs are unduly harsh for the appellant. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for him to relocate to Islamabad or Karachi. The RPD made the correct decision. Conclusion [48] I find that the appellant's issues with the SSP are localized to the city of Gujarat, Punjab. While the SSP have the means to locate him throughout the country, the evidence establishes that they are not motivated to locate the appellant. [49] There is no serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment or treatment or danger of torture in the IFAs. There is no undue hardship for the appellant to relocate to the proposed IFAs. [50] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.24 (signed) "R. Seyan" R. Seyan 23 April 2021 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 12.1. 3 Ibid., Item 12.5. 4 NDP for Pakistan (29 January 2021), Item 1.16. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 1.16. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 12.5. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 12.40. 10 NDP for Pakistan (29 January 2021), Item 1.6. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 1.8. 12 Ibid., Item 1.22. 13 Ibid., Item 1.13. 14 Ibid., Item 1.7; 1.16. 15 Ibid., Item 1. 24 16 Ibid., Item 1.13. 17 Ibid., Item 7.19. 18 Transcript of RPD Hearing, p. 19. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, C1: Updated Narrative, pp. 6 - 7 . 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 3.18. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 3.18. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 7.22 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (31 March 2020), Item 1.5. 24 Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-09745 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