TB8-10157

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-10157 TB8-10158 / TB8-10159 / TB8-10160 TB8-10161 / TB8-10162 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 15, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Robert Bebbington Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Elyse Korman Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant"), XXXX XXXX (the "Secondary Appellant"), XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Minor Appellants"), who are all nationals of Pakistan, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying their claim for refugee protection. They ask that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute its own decision that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection or, in the alternative, refer their claim back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he owned a haberdashery together with his brothers, known as XXXX XXXX.' He also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan. He became involved in an altercation with another clothing store operator who demanded the Appellant pay a "donation" to support a terrorist organization, but he refused. The Appellant fears reprisal from the XXXX XXXX XXXX and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) and the Pakistani Taliban (TTP). [4] The Appellants' hearing for refugee protection was held on February 15, 2018. In a decision on April 10, 2018, the RPD rejected the Appellants' claim, finding that the Appellants were not credible and that they had an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Pakistan. The Appellants' submit that the RPD erred in drawing its credibility findings and in its IFA conclusion. ROLE OF THE RAD [5] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica,1 the RAD must review RPD decisions on a correctness standard with respect to questions of law and findings of fact (and mixed fact and law) which raise no issue of the credibility of oral evidence. More deference may be required when the RPD is in an advantageous position with respect to the assessment of oral evidence. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL Did the RPD Err in its Assessment of the Appellants' Credibility Findings? [6] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in: * Drawing an adverse credibility finding in relation to its failure to assess the Appellants' supporting documents. * The assessment of a viable IFA for the Appellants. [7] The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence, that the determinative issue in this appeal is IFA. The RPD found that the Appellants have a reasonable IFA in Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore. The Appellants submit that the RPD made numerous errors in concluding that they had a viable IFA in Islamabad. [8] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to assess the supporting documents, such as the First Information Report (FIR), the Police report and the Newspaper clipping, which serve to substantiate the problems the Appellant faced. It would have been better had the RPD specifically commented on the evidence regarding the attacks the Appellant faced in Pakistan. However, even where the reasons given do not seem wholly adequate to support the decision, the RAD must first seek to independently assess the Appellants' documents. The RAD finds that it is provided with jurisprudence in Huruglica2 that would allow it to independently assess the documents. The RAD further notes the assessment of these documents may impact the relevance of the IFA conclusions. The FIR [9] The RAD has reviewed the FIR3 submitted by the Appellants. The RAD notes the Appellants' document is not an original, but appears to be a photocopy. The Appellant in his testimony and his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative states that the reason that he was attacked by XXXX XXXX and a group of men associated with the terrorist group Lashker-e-Tayyaba (LET), who had changed their name to "XXXX XXXX XXXX," was twofold: * The Appellant declined to donate money to support terrorist activities. * The Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX and these activities were offensive to Islam. [10] The RAD notes the document was registered by the Appellant's brother and included a sworn statement from the Appellant that describes the events leading to the XXXX XXXX, 2012 attack in the Appellant's place of business. The document notes, "The aggressors have caused fear and terror among the masses by resorting to indiscriminate shooting at the bazaar." The report describes the "reason of animosity was financial transaction." The RAD finds that, as much as this document was based on statements from the Appellant, there is no mention of any association with terrorism or that the agent of persecution, XXXX XXXX, was extorting the Appellant for donations to support terrorist activities. In fact, the Appellant stated that the altercation began because XXXX XXXX failed to return a cheque to the Appellant's employee. The RAD notes the Appellant submits that the fact that he refused to donate to support terrorist activities formed one of the central reasons that XXXX XXXX was seeking to harm him. [11] The RAD finds it reasonable to believe in registering an FIR, that, if there was an association of this incident with terrorist related activities, as well as extortion to support terrorism, it would be relayed to the authorities, so that they could bring closure to the problem and provide assistance. Without the proper information, it is unreasonable to expect the police to provide protection to the Appellant. The RAD finds this document undermines the Appellants' allegations that the male Appellant is being sought for extortion and harm by various terrorist organizations. The RAD places little weight on the FIR as support for the Appellants' allegations that they are at risk of harm from terrorist organizations in Pakistan. The Press Clipping [12] The RAD has reviewed the copy of the newspaper clipping4 which reported on the incident of XXXX XXXX, 2012. The article stated the incident occurred a result of shooting between the two groups over a money dispute. It further noted the altercation occurred between the owners of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX over an issue relating to a monetary transaction. The RAD notes there is no reference in this article to any association of the attackers with terrorist activities. The RAD finds the newspaper article simply confirms that an incident occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2012, but it is not capable of supporting the Appellants' allegations that they are at risk in Pakistan from terrorist related activities. The Police Report [13] The RAD has reviewed the Police Report5 submitted by the Appellant to the Station House Officer (SHO) following the alleged attack on XXXX XXXX, 2015. The RAD having reviewed the audio recording of the hearing notes the Appellants' counsel initially described the document as an FIR and then later corrected the description, calling it a Police Report. Documentary evidence makes no reference to the existence of any form of "police report." It clearly states that the FIR is the "basic document" used to report a crime or the "'first step to launching the criminal investigation process' [citation omitted]."6 The RAD notes this document is simply a letter composed by the Appellant. There is no supporting documentation in the record to confirm it was received by the police. [14] The RAD additionally notes that the document indicates that, while driving, the Appellant and his brother were shot at by two men on a motorcycle. The Appellant stated that the two men looked like members of the terrorist organization Tehrik e Taliban (TTP), but he provided no explanation as to how would he might know that they are associated with the TTP, beyond stating that they had beards, which could be any number of individuals in Pakistan. The RAD finds the Appellant's statements amount to speculation. The RAD finds it can place little weight on this document as support for the Appellants' allegations of harm from terrorist organizations in Pakistan. The Appellant's Brothers [15] The RPD found that despite the problems faced by the Appellant and his business (that he owned in partnership with his brothers), his brothers are still able to live and conduct business in Pakistan without problems and that this detracted from the credibility of his allegations of harm. The Appellants submit that the RPD did not consider that the Appellant's brother XXXX began to receive telephone threats from extremists and that he had moved his home on two occasions. They further argue that XXXX found it necessary to contact the police and seek assistance and that this undermines the RPD findings. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellants. [16] The RAD, in its review of the evidence, notes that the Appellant, in his testimony, confirmed that his brothers continued to operate their business without problems from the agent of persecution. The RPD asked, "if your brothers are being bothered by the people that bothered you, the XXXX XXXX XXXX for example or XXXX XXXX." The Appellant replied in the negative, indicating that his brothers had not faced any major problems. The Appellant further testified that his brother (XXXX) received threats regarding the Appellant and his whereabouts, but he did not indicate that any of these threats were directed towards his brother. The Appellant further testified that he felt the risk of harm was lessened now because the family business had changed its focus and they no longer XXXX XXXX XXXX. [17] A review of the third narrative amendment7 notes that the Appellant confirms his testimony that his brother XXXX started receiving anonymous threatening calls in XXXX of 2016. He further noted that the threats forced him to change his residence twice, once in 2015 and once in 2016. The RAD notes the Appellant's testimony does not address one of the principle reasons for the threats - that they are warning the Appellant's brother to withdraw the FIR that he had lodged on the Appellant's behalf in XXXX of 2012. [18] The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony in this area is at odds with other testimony where he states that the agents of persecution are still inquiring about him because he has not withdrawn the FIR. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony makes little sense. On one hand he testifies that the threats XXXX received are not directed at XXXX, yet XXXX was the individual who registered the FIR and not the Appellant. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony is meant to support that the agent of persecution is seeking the Appellant because he needs to withdraw the FIR. The RAD finds the Appellant's inconsistent testimony is simply not credible and that it is at odds with the statements in the third BOC amendment. The RAD has assessed the FIR elsewhere in this decision and notes that there is no evidence before the RAD or the RPD that the police in Pakistan are still investigating this incident 6 years after the fact. [19] The RAD further notes that at another point in his testimony, the Appellant stated that every business is expected to pay donations to the LeT/TTP. Yet, when testifying about the current situation of his brothers, who continue to operate the tailoring business, he testified that his brothers had no problems with extortion. The RAD finds the Appellant's allegations about problems he faced from the terrorist organizations are lacking in credibility. [20] The RAD finds that, despite one of the Appellant's brother's having to move his residence, and allegedly receiving inquiries as to the Appellant's whereabouts, the brothers continue to operate the business and reside safely in Pakistan. The RAD finds that this detracts from the Appellants' allegations that his brothers face harm from the same agents of persecution in Pakistan. The RAD further finds that the Appellant's testimony confirms that the agent of persecution is unaware of his location. This undermines the Appellants' argument that the agent of persecution has the ability to locate him and his family anywhere in Pakistan. [21] The RAD has reviewed all of the evidence submitted by the Appellants, as well as the Appellants' arguments, in respect to the credibility of pursuit by various terrorist organizations in Pakistan. The RAD finds, after its assessment of the Appellants' supporting documents, that they do not support the Appellants' argument that the documents confirm the Appellants' allegations that they are at risk of harm from terrorist organizations such as the LeT, TTP and the Jamaat ul Dawa in Pakistan. The RAD finds the credibility of the Appellants' allegations that their fear arises from the Appellant's refusal to provide financial support for terrorist activities and that his clothing design activities offend Islam, is undermined by the evidence. The RAD finds the Appellants' evidence indicates that the problem is local in nature and supports, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was simply involved in a local dispute with a fellow businessman. The RAD finds the Appellants' argument must fail. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [22] The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence, that the determinative issue in this appeal is IFA. The RPD found the Appellants have a viable IFA in Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore. The Appellants submit that the RPD made numerous errors in concluding that they had an IFA in Pakistan. [23] The Appellants argue: 1. The RPD found their allegations of harm were not credible in respect to being targeted in Gujranwala, and then went on to find that they would also be safe in Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore. The Appellants submit that, if they were not credible about any of their allegations, how could the RPD assess the viability of an IFA? Once the Appellants' allegations were rejected, there was simply no factual basis left upon which to consider the risk in the IFA locations. 2. The RPD, in its reasons, misstated that the country of reference as Iraq, when the actual country of reference is Pakistan. [24] The RAD notes the RPD reasons state, "It is possible that a local thug would have threatened the claimant for refusing to make a donation, or out of jealousy (such as a commercial rival), but the panel finds such local opportunistic threat would not probably translate into an all-Pakistan vendetta against the claimants." The RAD finds in its review, that the RPD is suggesting that the Appellants' problem is local in nature and that an IFA is applicable. The RAD finds this aspect of the Appellants' argument must fail. [25] The Appellants further submit that the RPD in its reasons misstated that the country of reference as Iraq, when the actual country of reference is Pakistan. The RAD finds the RPD did misstate the country of reference where the Appellants reside. The RAD finds this is an inadvertent typing error and notes the RPD does identify the correct country and regional area of residence throughout its reasons, which has greater significance in the analysis of an IFA location. The RAD has considered whether this error is sufficient to justify setting aside the decision. The RAD finds that in accordance with the jurisprudence, it is open to the RAD to conduct its own analysis and consider the viability of an IFA should the Appellants return to Pakistan. [26] In assessing an IFA, the RAD must apply a two-pronged test cited in Rasaratnam:8 1) the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA. 2) moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for the claimant to seek refuge there. [27] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that the Appellant has an IFA. The burden of proof rests with the Appellant to show that he does not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region for that purpose taking into account the Appellant's identity. An IFA must be a realistic and attainable option. The Appellant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in traveling there or staying there.9 First Prong The Documentary Evidence [28] The RAD notes that it found the Appellant's own evidence confirms that his problems in Pakistan arise from a dispute with a local businessman and that there was no evidence adduced to confirm that he is at risk from terrorist groups such as the LeT, Jamaat ul Dawa or the TTP. Country documentation from the United Kingdom Home Office indicates upon individual assessment that internal relocation is possible in Pakistan: DFAT's assessment on internal relocation stated: 'Because of Pakistan's size and diversity, there are viable relocation options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities: internal relocation offers a degree of anonymity and the opportunity for victims to seek refuge from non-state instigate discrimination or violence. Many large urban centres, such as Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad are home to mixed ethnic and religious communities and offer a greater degree of anonymity and better opportunities for employment, access to services and state protection than rural or small urban areas..'10 [Footnote omitted] [29] The RAD notes the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan state: Given the wide geographic reach of some armed militant groups...a viable IFA/IRA will generally not be available to individuals at risk of being targeted by such groups. Furthermore, some non-State agents of persecution, such as local powerbrokers, organized criminal elements, as well as armed militant groups, reportedly have links to or are closely associated with influential actors in the local and central administration, law enforcement and/or judiciary. As a result, they often operate with impunity and their reach may extend beyond the area(s) under their immediate control.11 [Footnotes omitted] [Emphasis added] [30] The RAD, in assessing this documentation, finds that it is necessary to consider the individual circumstances of the Appellant in respect of the availability of an IFA in Pakistan. [31] The Appellant testified that it would not be safe for them to return to any location in Pakistan because the agent of persecution would be able to track them down. The RAD notes the Appellant in his testimony alleges that this is supported by the fact that while looking for a home to rent in XXXX (near Islamabad), he and his family were attacked by a "bearded man". However, when asked to explain how he knew the man was a terrorist, the Appellant could only speculate that it was because of his beard and long clothes. When asked if he could provide any additional evidence on this issue or how someone would be able to locate him among millions of people in Pakistan, the Appellant replied that he did not know. [32] Subsequently, the Appellant, when asked again how the agent of persecution would be able to find him and his family, he testified, "They have very strong network, they have that ability to find me. Nothing in Pakistan is hidden from them." The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony about the agent of persecution's ability to track him down was vague and lacking in specificity. [33] The RAD notes that it has determined the Appellants' agent of persecution's pursuit is limited and local. The RAD has reviewed the available documentary evidence as well as the audio recording of the hearing. The RAD notes that in order to target the Appellant in Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore, the agent of persecution, XXXX XXXX, would be required to: 1) Learn the Appellants have returned to Pakistan; 2) Learn the Appellants have relocated to Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore; 3) Determine the whereabouts of the Appellants in Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore. [34] The RAD finds it reasonable to expect that, if an individual or organization was of sufficient strength and reach to be able to learn of a person's return to Pakistan or their presence in any city in Pakistan, there would be objective country condition evidence to support this. [35] The RAD has reviewed the submissions of the Appellant, the available documentary evidence, and finds that as much as it accepts that the Appellant was targeted by a local businessman and a gang of thugs who work with him, there is not sufficient credible evidence to establish that they have geographic reach or the capability to learn of the Appellants' return to Pakistan upon arrival at a regular port of entry to the country, or trace the Appellants' movements within Pakistan. [36] The RAD supports the finding of the RPD in this instance. The Situation in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad [37] A search of both the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and the Appellants' documentation for evidence of violence in these areas reveals little evidence of risk to individuals with a profile similar to the Appellant. Assessing the situation in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) stated: 5.14 Large urban centres such as Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore tend to have ethnically - and religiously diverse populations, and offer a level of anonymity for people seeking refuge from violence by non-state actors... 5.15 Lahore has a population of around 10 million people. While it remains a majority-Punjabi city, there are significant numbers of some other ethnic groups, particularly Pashtuns. There are few Hazaras or Turis in Lahore. While security incidents can occur - such as the 2016 Easter Sunday attack - the security situation in Lahore tends to be better than other areas. Representatives of the Pashtun community told DFAT that Lahore was safer for Pashtuns than other parts of the country. Similarly, representatives of the Shi'a community told DFAT that Lahore and Islamabad were the safest parts of the country for Shi'a. Representatives of the Lahore Christian community told DFAT that the security situation has improved and that the government is genuine in its attempts to provide Christians with state protection, although some risks-particularly of communal violence and societal discrimination - remain. 5.16 Islamabad has a population of around two million people, including a large number of internal migrants from all parts of the country. There is a strong security presence, including checkpoints throughout the city and its entry points, and patrols by the paramilitary Rangers. These security measures provide a strong deterrent to militant groups planning attacks in the capital, and large-scale militant or sectarian attacks in Islamabad are rare. Such violence more often takes the form of targeted killings (such as drive-by shootings) of high-profile community leaders. 5.17 Karachi's population is estimated at between 20-24 million people, making it Pakistan's largest population centre. Security operations in Karachi have significantly reduced the level of militant and sectarian violence in recent years, although attacks are more frequent in Karachi than in Lahore or Islamabad. According to the SATP, around 250 people died in terrorism-related incidents in Karachi during 2016. This includes suspected militants killed in encounters with police. The relatively high number of casualties from insurgent, sectarian and criminal violence in Karachi is due in part to the city's large population. A significant number of internal migrants live in poor conditions on the outskirts of the city. Credible sources told DFAT that Karachi is generally less safe for religious and ethnic minorities than other cities such as Lahore. However, some parts of Karachi are relatively safe, particularly in South Karachi (such as the more prosperous Clifton and Defence neighbourhoods). Further, 3.99... Political violence tends to be most prevalent in Karachi. Since the beginning of Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the National Action Plan, violence by groups linked to political parties has significantly reduced.12 [38] The RAD finds upon its review of the evidence there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would face persecution at the hands of the agents of persecution in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. Second Prong [39] The RAD finds, after its own review and assessment of the evidence in the record, that it is reasonable in all of the particular circumstances of the Appellants' situation that they could return to Pakistan and relocate to Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore. [40] The RAD notes the Appellant has twelve years of education, he is an experienced international traveler and has relocated and resided in both the United States and Canada. He speaks Urdu and some English. The only issue advanced against relocation within the Appellants' country is that they are targets of an individual associated with extremist groups and that they will find him anywhere in Pakistan. The RAD has previously concluded the agent of persecution does not have that ability. The RAD finds that the Appellants have not adduced any evidence to confirm that there are any circumstances or conditions which would make Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore an unreasonable IFA. [41] The RAD does not find the Appellants' argument sufficient to justify their failure to attempt relocation within their home country. [42] As per Thirunavukkarasu,13 the test for reasonableness is whether it would be unduly harsh to expect the Appellants to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking status abroad. This requires an evaluation of the conditions in the IFA as well as the Appellants or similarly situated persons. Thirunavukkarasu sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.14 Additionally, it is not enough for the Appellants to say that they do not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work. [43] The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that there are no serious social, economic or other barriers to the Appellants relocating to Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore. The RAD finds, after a full assessment of the evidence, that the Appellants would not suffer from undue hardship in relocating to any of these cities. [44] The RAD, therefore, agrees with the finding of the RPD and finds that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the Appellants, for them to seek refuge there. [45] For all of the reasons above, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellants have an accessible and viable IFA in Pakistan. [46] Once the issue of an IFA is raised, the onus is on the Appellants to show that the option does not exist by establishing that either of the two tests cited in Rasaratnam criteria is not met. The Federal Court of Appeal in Thirunavukkarasu stated that the applicants need only show that there is a serious possibility of being persecuted in the new location or that their removal to Islamabad would not subject them personally to a risk to their lives, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. The RAD finds that the Appellants have failed to show that the IFA option is not available to them. [47] Given the finding above that the Appellants have an IFA in Pakistan, the RAD finds that the Appellants do not face a serious possibility of persecution there, and also finds that their removal to Pakistan would not subject them personally to a risk to their lives, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture. DISPOSITION [48] The RAD finds that there is an IFA for the Appellants, and since IFA is a determinative issue, the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. CONCLUSION [49] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD. (signed) "Robert Bebbington" Robert Bebbington March 15, 2019 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10, pp. 188-192. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 11, pp. 232-234. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 14, pp. 249-250. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (January 31, 2018), Item 9.1, Response to Information Request (RIR) PAK104714.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (10 January 2014), p. 1. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 12, pp. 241-245. 8 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minster of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), p. 710. 9 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.), pp. 596-599. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (January 31, 2018), Item 1.12, United Kingdom. Home Office (July 2017), p. 35, section 13.1.2. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (January 31, 2018), Item 1.8, HCR/EG/PAK/17/01, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (January 2017), p. 66. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (January 31, 2018), Item 1.25, Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (1 September 2017), pp. 26, 7-38. 13 Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.). 14 M.C.I. v. Ranganathan, Rohini (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000. Reported: Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-10157 TB8-10158 / TB8-10159 / TB8-10160 TB8-10161 / TB8-10162 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français 15 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 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français