MC0-05402

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-05402 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et decision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision June 21, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Bianca Eleonora Suciu Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Deepak Pawar 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 INTRODUCTION [1] The appellant, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Pakistan. He appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rendered on February 11, 2020, rejecting his claim filed pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act). [2] The RPD found that the appellant was not credible as to the basis of his claim. It also concluded that the appellant has a viable internal flight alternative in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The appellant contests the decision and asks the Refugee Appeals Division (RAD) to grant the appeal or to return the file to the RPD for re-determination. OVERVIEW [3] The appellant is of Shia-Muslim faith. He lived in XXXX, Sialkot, Punjab-a town of about 200 000 people-where he was the owner of a sewing machine store for 30 years. In the written narrative of his Basis of Claim Form (BOC), he alleges that he became a target of Sunni extremists in 2000 because of his Shia faith. He claimed that he was the victim of three attacks, one in XXXX 2000 and two in XXXX 2017. He also received a letter with threats from the extremist group XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2017. He left Pakistan for the USA on XXXX XXXX, 2017. He came to Canada to ask for asylum on December 6, 2017. DECISION [4] Based on my independent analysis of all the evidence on the file, including the recording of the hearing, I find that the appellant has a viable IFA in Rawalpindi. Therefore, I confirm the RPD's determination pursuant to which the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the Act. [5] The appeal is dismissed. NEW EVIDENCE [6] The appellant submitted three documents as new evidence on appeal namely i) a news article entitled Pakistani Shias live in terror as sectarian violence increases dated October 21, 2020; ii) his BOC, and iii) an IRB Response to Information Request, dated January 15, 2020. [7] Pursuant to rule 110(4) of the Act, new evidence is only admissible if it arose after the rejection of the claim, or it was not then reasonably available; or although the evidence was reasonably available, it could not reasonably be expected to have been presented, at the time of the rejection. To be admissible, the evidence must also be credible, relevant, and new.1 [8] The RPD rendered its decision on February 11, 2020. The news article post-dates the decision of the RPD and is relevant to the issue of the risk faced by the Shia population in Pakistan. The article appears credible on its face. I therefore admit it on appeal as Exhibit A-1. [9] The appellant's BOC is already on the record and therefore does not constitute new evidence. The IRB Response to Information Request forms part of the updated country conditions documentation which I apply ex-officio in the appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW [10] The RAD is required to independently assess all the evidence and determine whether the RPD was correct in relation to each alleged error of law, fact or mixed fact and law. In exceptional situations where the RPD had a meaningful advantage, the RAD can defer to its findings. In this case, the applicable standard of review is that of correctness.2 ANALYSIS Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [11] I find the determinative issue in this appeal to be the existence of an IFA. Although I take issue with a number of credibility conclusions drawn by the RPD, I do not need to analyze them as they do not impact my determination of the IFA. [12] I find that the appellant has a viable IFA in Rawalpindi. First prong: no prospective risk established in the IFA location [13] I accept the appellant's allegations of past persecution in Pakistan. However, I find that the appellant has not established a prospective risk if he was to relocate to Rawalpindi. [14] The appellant alleges that his problems started in XXXX 2000, when he was attacked by Sunni-Muslim extremists because he is Shia. He alleges that his store was popular among religious minority groups because he offered those customers cheaper prices. This put him on the radar of the local extremist groups. In his testimony, the appellant declared that in XXXX 2000, he was attacked by the Sunni Tehreek extremist groups, and that in XXXX 2017 he received a letter with death threats from the extremist group XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, accusing him and the Christians of being anti-Islam. In XXXX 2017, the appellant alleges that some youth from the mosque came to his store, following the visit of a Christian priest costumer, ransacked his store and beat him up, together with the customers that were present. A week later, he alleges that he was chased by two motorcyclists who shot at him but missed and threatened that they will get him next time. In the period between 2000 and 2017, the appellant alleges that the door of his business was often vandalized with graffiti and garbage was thrown in front of his store. The appellant testified that after the last incident in XXXX 2017, he fled his town and went to Rawalpindi before leaving the country on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [15] There is no evidence that his agents of persecution tried to find the appellant after he left his town, XXXX, in XXXX 2017, more than three years ago. The appellant was able to live in Rawalpindi with his daughter for three months before he left Pakistan with no incidents. Three of the appellant's siblings still live in the same town where the alleged events took place. [16] It is reasonable to expect that if the appellant's agents of persecution had the intention to pursue and harm him, they would have approached his family to inquire about his whereabouts. This didn't happen and the appellant's family were able to continue living in Rawalpindi since 2018 with no contact from his assailants. I am of the view that the appellant has not demonstrated that members of the Sunni Tehreek or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX extremist groups maintained an interest in searching for him ever since he stopped his activities and left the area. [17] Furthermore, neither the appellant's evidence, nor the country conditions evidence establish that those who attacked the appellant have the capacity to track him down in a country of 233.5 million people.3 According to the objective evidence, internal relocation to big cities is generally available to people fleeing persecution by non-state actors.4 Big urban centres such as Rawalpindi can offer the appellant a good level of anonymity from his assailants.5 Rawalpindi has ethnically and religiously diverse populations and a high number of Shias live there. Shia and Sunni communities in large urban centres are generally well integrated.6 The appellant does not have public notoriety in Rawalpindi that could attract the attention of extremist militants. [18] I therefore conclude that the appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm pursuant to section 97 of the Act from his assailants in Rawalpindi. [19] The appellant argues that the RPD misinterpreted the evidence on the risk faced by Shias in Pakistan. He relies on a recent article submitted on appeal (exhibit A-1), which he argues shows that sectarian violence against Shias is on the rise in Pakistan and that the appellant fits the profile of someone who can be targeted by extremists at any given time in the IFA location. [20] I have examined the article submitted by the appellant which speaks of a social media campaign organized by extremist groups demanding that Shia Muslims be declared heretics. This was followed by one of the largest anti-Shia marches in decades calling Shia Muslims non-believers and blasphemers and asking for their beheading. The article states that the march took place in Karachi in September 2020 and was replicated in other cities, including Islamabad. [21] While I agree that such public denunciations against Shias are concerning, according to the 2019 Country Policy and Information Note issued by the United Kingdom Home Office "overall sectarian violence against Shias has declined since 2013" due to anti-terrorist operations conducted across the country. It is reported that "[b]etween 2014 and 2017, the total number of violence-related fatalities declined by over 73%".7 It is reported that additional army counter-terrorism operations in 2017 further undermined the ability of extremist groups such as the TTP to plan and execute attacks.8 Furthermore, according to the evidence, "The western provinces bordering Afghanistan, Balochistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), remained the areas where most militant and sectarian violence (suicide attacks and targeted killings) occurred", followed by Karachi, which is considered one of the most violent cities in Pakistan.9 [22] It is also reported that "Although there continued to be targeted attacks in Shia dominated areas, these are infrequent and do not generally amount to substantial grounds for considering there is a real risk of persecution and/or serious harm" from non-state actors.10 "Simply living in an area where militant groups are active is unlikely to give rise to a protection need."11 [23] I also agree with the RPD that when targeted attacks occur, they most often target people in prominent positions, including community leaders, journalists, activists, or security forces.12 The appellant has not demonstrated that relocating to a big urban centre where he does not have notoriety will attract the attention of extremist groups. [24] I conclude that the overall evidence does not establish that the appellant will be exposed to a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to his life, torture or unusual or cruel punishment or treatment in Rawalpindi. 2nd prong: the IFA is reasonable [25] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding the relocation reasonable. He submits that considering his lack of education, connections, financial resources, and lack of usable experience to earn a living in a big city, it would be unreasonable for him to relocate to Rawalpindi. [26] I must note that the threshold for finding a relocation unreasonable is very high. The Federal Court of Appeal has recognized that "there is always some hardship, even undue hardship, involved when a person has to abandon the comfort of his home to live in a different part of his country where he has to seek employment and start a new life away from relatives and friends."13 However the "unreasonableness" test "requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area."14 [27] In the present case, I note that the appellant has completed his secondary school and has been self-employed his whole life, operating a shop selling sewing machines. He has therefore acquired entrepreneurial skills that can serve him in the new city. The appellant also speaks Urdu, which is the official language in Pakistan. According to the documentary evidence, migration to big cities is common and widespread as they offer better job opportunities and public services.15 Finally, the appellant has family connections in the IFA location, as two of his daughters live in Rawalpindi.16 I find that it would not be unreasonable for the appellant to relocate to Rawalpindi. [28] I conclude that the appellant has a viable IFA in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. CONCLUSION [29] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD pursuant to which the appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Act. [30] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Bianca E. Suciu Me Bianca Eleonora Suciu June 21, 2021 Date BES/in 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 230. 2 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, paras. 70-74; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, pp. 90-91. 3 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.5: ?Pakistan.The World Factbook. United States.Central Intelligence Agency. 19 January 2021, p. 1. 4 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.16: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Shia Muslims. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019, para 2.4.9 and tab 1.12: Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Background information, including internal relocation. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2020, para 2.3.2. 5 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.12: Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Background information, including internal relocation. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2020, para 13.3.1 and tab 1.13: ?DFAT Country Information Report: Pakistan. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 20 February 2019, para 5.32. 6 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.16: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Shia Muslims. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019, para. 3.1.2. 7 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.18: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Security and humanitarian situation, including fear of militant groups. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019, para. 2.4.11. 8 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 7.7: ?Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Stanford University. Mapping Militant Organizations. 30 July 2018, p. 2. 9 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.18: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Security and humanitarian situation, including fear of militant groups. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019, para 2.4.11. 10 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.16: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Shia Muslims. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019, para 2.4.9. 11 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.18 : Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Security and humanitarian situation, including fear of militant groups. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019, para 2.4.3. 12 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.18 : Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Security and humanitarian situation, including fear of militant groups. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019, para 7.3.1. 13 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164, para 14. 14 Ibid., para 15. 15 RAD-1, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 16 April 2021, tab 1.12 : Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Background information, including internal relocation. Version 3.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2020, para 13.3.2. 16 See RPD-1, RPD Record, BOC, p. 23. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-05402 RAD.25.02 (May 19, 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 (May 19, 2021) Disponible en français