MC0-02547

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-02547 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 Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 30, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Ayanna Roberts Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Claude Whalen 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] I dismiss the appeal. The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Pakistan, from Gujrat. a. The appellant fears his ex-fiancée's family. The appellant claims that he met his ex-fiancée in 2000 when he worked as a XXXX XXXX XXXX. She wanted to buy land. They started dating in January 2000 and decided to get married. His ex-fiancée's mother was allegedly opposed to the marriage. He was allegedly threatened by his fiancée's brother on February 18, 2000. The brother, a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, allegedly insisted that the appellant end the relationship. On March 8, 2000, the appellant was allegedly kidnapped and beaten by four men because he did not end the relationship. He left Pakistan using another individual's passport on XXXX XXXX, 2000. He stayed in the United States without status. Following a short relationship with a Pakistani woman in Chicago, his son was born in April 2009. After his son's birth, the woman threatened to report him to the American authorities. He was also troubled by the anti-Muslim policies in the United States. He arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and claimed refugee protection. b. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the appellant did not testify in a credible manner and that he did not establish that his ex-fiancée's family is interested in him in Pakistan. The appellant claims that he testified in a credible manner and that the passage of time is not a basis for concluding that the family has no interest in him. c. The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is whether the appellant faces a prospective risk in Pakistan. d. The appellant did not establish that his ex-fiancée's family is interested in him in Pakistan. The appellant has not heard from his ex-fiancée's family since he left Pakistan. There is no evidence that he faces a prospective risk because of his relationship with his ex-fiancée. DETERMINATION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct to determine that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [3] My role is to review all of the evidence and establish whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 The appellant did not establish on a balance of probabilities that he faces a credible risk in Pakistan [4] The RPD found that the appellant's testimony on the basis of his claim was not credible because it was vague and lacked spontaneity, because of an omission from his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), because of his delay in claiming asylum in the United States, and because he failed to demonstrate that he faces a prospective risk in Pakistan. The appellant claims that his oral testimony was credible and consistent with his BOC Form, that he adequately explained why he was unable to claim asylum after he arrived in the United States, and that it is reasonable to believe that the passage of time is not a basis for concluding that his persecutors are no longer interested in him. [5] The RPD erred in its assessment of the appellant's credibility regarding his oral testimony, the omission from his written account and his failure to claim asylum in the United States. However, the RPD did not err in concluding that the appellant does not face a prospective risk to his life in Pakistan. [6] I considered the appellant's arguments that, during his 18-year stay in the United States, he tried to regularize his status by meeting with a lawyer about 14 to 15 months after his arrival, then by trying to get married. I considered the appellant's testimony that he was XXXX during his stay in the United States, as well as two letters he filed in evidence, which were written by Canadian health professionals who state that he suffers from XXXX XXXX and probable XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).2 These letters do not mention any specific difficulties that might affect the appellant's testimony. The general practitioner's letter3 speculates that the XXXX and XXXX were triggered by the problems that the appellant allegedly had with his ex-fiancée in India, and worsened during his conflicts with the mother of his child in the United States. The doctor notes that the XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX stabilized as a result of medical intervention. I accept that the appellant suffers from XXXX and that he suffered trauma after he moved from Pakistan to the United States, then to Canada, which hindered his ability to take action promptly to stabilize his immigration status. However, the fact that the appellant did not claim asylum in the United States or make additional efforts to obtain a legal status in the United States is not determinative. [7] After listening to the recording of the hearing, I accept that the appellant had a brief romantic relationship in January and February 2000 with a woman in Pakistan and that they decided to get married. I accept that the woman's family was opposed to the marriage. Although I am of the view that the appellant did not give many details about this brief relationship, I accept that there was not much information to provide because of the length of the relationship and the fact that they met in person only four times, sometimes in the company of others. [8] I accept that this woman's brother was a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and that this brother incited four of his military colleagues to kidnap, beat and threaten the appellant so that he would end his relationship with the woman. According to the appellant's testimony, when those four soldiers put him in their car on March 8, 2000, they were not in uniform. He ended up in a military cantonment, where he was beaten. The individuals threatened to file a complaint against him for harassing a woman, and let him go on the condition that he would end his relationship and leave Pakistan. The appellant testified that when he was released, he stayed in Lahore, left Pakistan on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2000, with the help of a smuggler, and never went back. [9] I agree with the RPD's conclusion that there is no evidence that the ex-fiancée's family is currently interested in the appellant. The appellant submits that it is reasonable to conclude that his persecutors are aware that he left the country and that the passage of time does not mean that they are no longer interested in him. I do not accept this argument. It is not only the passage of time that leads me to agree with the RPD that his persecutors are no longer interested in him, but also the lack of evidence of any interest in him over the past 20 years, which leads me to conclude that he does not face a risk from them on a balance of probabilities. [10] The appellant testified that he did not inform his ex-fiancée that he left the country, that he left the country using another individual's passport, that he has not spoken to his ex-fiancée or her family since the incident of March 8, 2000, and that he has not heard from his ex-fiancée or her family since that time. The evidence does not indicate that his ex-fiancée's family is aware that the appellant is not in Pakistan. [11] In addition, there is no evidence that the family has made any effort to find him. His ex-fiancée's family lives in Gujrat, in the same city as the appellant's family. The appellant testified that neither he nor his family has heard from his ex-fiancée's family since March 2000. The appellant did not establish on a balance of probabilities that his ex-fiancée's family is interested in him. [12] For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the appellant does not face a prospective risk to his life in Pakistan. CONCLUSION [13] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Ayanna Roberts Ayanna Roberts April 30, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, C-1, Letter from CLSC Côte-des-Neiges, November 5 , 2019, at pages 81-82 ; C-2, lettter from the Réseau d'intervention auprès des personnes ayant subi la violence organisée [intervention network for persons affected by organized violence], March 27, 2019, at page 83. 3 SPR-1, RPD record, C-1, Letter from CLSC Côte-des-Neiges, November 5, 2019, at pages 81-82. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-02547 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 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