MB9-18201

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-18201 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 31, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Sasha Kiran Cragg-Gore Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Stephanie Valois Barrister and Solicitor 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] These are my reasons for dismissing this appeal. [2] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Pakistan who was born and grew up in Saudi Arabia. His father fled the Baluchistan area of Pakistan about 50 years ago after discovering a stash of weapons which he reported to authorities. This led to a conflict between him, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX some of whom were fighting for independence from Pakistan. His father first fled to a different area of Pakistan, married despite the disapproval of his wife's family, and then fled with his wife to Saudi Arabia. [3] The Appellant fears these same tribes including his own, his wife's family, as well as the Pakistani authorities for the same reasons that his father fled the country despite never having been to Pakistan. When his status in Saudi Arabia expired, he came to Canada and claimed refugee status in XXXX 2018. [4] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his claim for the following main reasons: (a) The Appellant did not establish that he is being sought by Pakistani authorities as his brother's letter never mentioned this and his testimony on this point was vague and evasive; (b) He would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution at the hands of families impacted by his father's actions from 50 years ago; (c) He did not establish that his mother's family would seek to punish him for his parent's actions from so long ago; and, (d) He would be able to live safely in Lahore or Islamabad and it is not unreasonable to require him to move there (in other words, he has an Internal Flight Alternative in Lahore or Islamabad). [5] The Appellant contests the RPD's decision and is now asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to recognize him as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. In the alternative, he asks the RAD to remit this matter back to the RPD for redetermination. He has not requested to submit new evidence, nor has he requested an oral hearing. His main arguments are that: (a) The RPD was wrong to reject the Appellant's testimony about his potential persecution by Pakistani authorities; (b) Honour and revenge crimes are common XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for people who have not respected ethnic codes and the Appellant would be at risk of persecution in Pakistan today; (c) The fact that neither the Appellant, nor his parents ever returned to Pakistan is evidence of their fear of returning there; (d) It is unreasonable to require the Appellant to move to Lahore, as he knows no one there, he doesn't speak the language and people from his tribe, who are nomadic, would eventually find out he had come to Pakistan; and, (e) The Appellant may face discrimination in Pakistan, which was not considered by the RPD. DECISION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. [7] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant has not established that he is being sought by the Pakistani authorities. In addition, he has never been directly threatened, he has never been to Pakistan and has based this claim on actions by his parents that took place about 50 years ago. While his fear may be genuine, in these circumstances I agree with the RPD that he would not face a serious possibility of persecution in Pakistan today. For the same reasons, he is not a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [8] My role is to look at all of the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 The Appellant has not established that he is being sought by Pakistani authorities [9] The RPD concluded that the Appellant has not established that he is being sought by Pakistani authorities due to contradictions between his evidence and his brother's letter and due to the fact that he has never had any issues obtaining Pakistani passports. The Appellant argues that these are insufficient grounds to reject the Appellant's assertion about being sought by the authorities. I disagree. [10] The Appellant has learned about his parent's issues in Pakistan second hand, mostly through his brother who wrote an affidavit in support of his claim. Despite being much more connected to the allegations, his brother does not mention that the Pakistani authorities are after the Appellant's father or the Appellant. The Appellant simply explained that he did not write all the details in his letter but had explained this to the Appellant before he left Saudi Arabia. [11] I agree with the RPD that this explanation is not reasonable. Being sought by the authorities is a crucial aspect of this claim, and the brother's affidavit is relatively detailed. I would also expect him to mention this in his letter. I agree with the RPD that this contradiction raises credibility concerns and leads me to conclude that the Appellant is not being sought by Pakistani authorities, on a balance of probabilities. I also note that the Appellant had no trouble ever obtaining Pakistani passports, a conclusion which was not directly contested by the Appellant. [12] The Appellant also did not provide any evidence of any complaints being submitted to authorities. He explained that he does not have anyone he can ask for help to get copies of the complaints there. I agree with the RPD that this explanation is unreasonable. He could have established contact with a lawyer or one of the acquaintances of his father who still lived in Pakistan to assist in obtaining these documents, but he made no efforts whatsoever. I note that he testified that his father was still in touch with acquaintances in Pakistan before he passed away. [13] I note that the Appellant was not confronted with the above issues at the hearing, but was rather provided an opportunity to explain these issues post-hearing in an affidavit. While it would have been preferable to address these concerns at the hearing, I have reviewed the post-hearing affidavit submitted by the Appellant and conclude that he was provided a sufficient opportunity to respond to these concerns. I note that the Appellant did not raise any procedural fairness issues regarding this and, after my independent assessment, I conclude that the RPD did not err in proceeding this way. The Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution in Pakistan [14] I agree with the RPD that he would not face a serious possibility of persecution in Pakistan. The Appellant points to documentary evidence that confirms the prevalence of honour and revenge crimes XXXX XXXX for people who do not follow ethnic codes and argues that this evidence supports the view that he would face persecution in Pakistan. [15] The Appellant's claim is based on the actions of his parents that took place about 50 years ago. Since then, no one in the Appellant's family has returned to Pakistan. The Appellant has not alleged being directly contacted, nor threatened by anyone. I have also already concluded that he is not being sought by Pakistani authorities. So much time has passed and, if anyone, it was his father who faced a risk in Pakistan, but his father passed away about 5 years ago. [16] In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the fact that acquaintances who have come to Saudi Arabia for their pilgrimages had informed the Appellant's father that the families touched by his father's actions want revenge. There is no indication of when these events took place, but they must be from at least 5 years ago as this is when the Appellant's father passed away. The Appellant has not provided any details as to who exactly wants revenge and what type of revenge they are seeking. There is no indication that this desire for revenge extends to the Appellant. This threat is simply too removed, vague and general to establish a serious possibility of persecution for the Appellant today in Pakistan. [17] I have reviewed the documentary evidence referred to by the Appellant. Indeed, honour and revenge crimes are common XXXX XXXX and in Pakistan more generally. However, this evidence refers to men and women who dishonour their family and then are either killed or punished.2 No evidence has been provided to support the Appellant's allegation that he would have to pay or be punished for the actions of his parents. I conclude, as did the RPD, that the documentary evidence does not support the Appellant's allegations and rather supports my conclusion that the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution upon return. [18] I have also considered the allegation that his mother's family would punish the Appellant for his parent's actions. He alleges that her family did not approve of his parents' marriage and would seek to punish him. However, so much time has passed and his parents have now passed away. I agree with the RPD that this is an insufficient basis to establish that he would face a serious possibility of persecution in Pakistan. [19] For the same reasons discussed above, I also find that the Appellant is not a person in need of persecution. Internal flight alternative is not a determinative issue [20] While the RPD and the Appellant address potential Internal Flight Alternatives (IFA) outside of Baluchistan, it is unnecessary for me to discuss these findings and arguments here, as I have concluded that the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Pakistan. CONCLUSION [21] 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. (signed) Sasha Kiran Cragg-Gore Sasha Kiran Cragg-Gore July 31, 2020 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2645-17), Diner, November 14, 2018, 2018 FC 1145. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan, 29 March 2019, items 1.8, 2.1 and 5.1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-18201 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