Category: Pakistan

Citation: 2021 RLLR 1
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 15, 2021
Panel: Rodrick Flynn
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Miranda Lim
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: TB9-17419
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-17487
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000035-000044

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       XXXX XXXX (“the principal claimant”) and his wife, XXXX XXXX (“the female claimant”) (collectively “the claimants”) are citizens of Pakistan and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The specifics of the claimants’ allegations are set out in the common narrative² attached to each of the Basis of Claim forms.³ In summary, the claimants indicate that they are bath members of the Ahmadi Muslim faith⁴ and fear persecution in Pakistan on the grounds of their religion⁵. The principal claimant was a resident of Italy from XXXX 2005⁶ to XXXX 2019⁷ and was issued an EC Long-Term Residence Permit (“the Permit”) in late 2018⁸ before the claimants carne to Canada on XXXX, 2019.⁹ After growing up in Pakistan, the female claimant lived in Germany on a student visa from XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2019 on a series of term student visas.¹⁰

DETERMINATION

[3]       The panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA, based upon their Ahmadi religion.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]       The claimants’ respective identities as citizens of Pakistan are established by the various documents on file¹¹, including a copy of their respective Pakistani passports¹² which were submitted into evidence at the hearing.

[5]       The claimants’ religious identities as members of the Ahmadi faith are established, on a balance of probabilities by their credible oral evidence concerning the nature and history of their faith and their participation in religious activities; as well as various documents entered into evidence. These records include:

• Canadian Ahmadi Certificates¹³;
• Ahmadi identity cards;¹⁴
• Ahmadi donation receipts from Canada;¹⁵
• Ahmadi donation receipts from Pakistan;¹⁶
• Ahmadi donation receipts from Italy and Germany;¹⁷ and
• various other confirmations of their participation and recognition in the Ahmadi faith.¹⁸

Credibility

[6]       Both of the claimants gave oral evidence at the hearing. Generally, the panel finds them both to be credible witnesses, particularly with respect to their official marital status in Europe; their status in Italy and the EU and the Permit; and the most significant elements of their claims, including the reasons why they had left both Pakistan and Europe and came to Canada.

Well-founded fear of Persecution

[7]       As the panel has accepted the claimants’ respective religious identities as members of the Ahmadi faith, and in view of the clear and consistent objective evidence from the National Documentation Package for Pakistan¹⁹ that Ahmadis face persecution on religious grounds throughout Pakistan from both state and non-state actors without adequate state protection, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants should they return to Pakistan.

[8]       The claimants have persuasively testified that they fear persecution and violence in Pakistan from various sources including the Pakistani government and religious extremists. This subjective fear is confirmed pervasively in the objective evidence.

[9]       As summarized by the UNCHR in Item 1.8 of the NDP for Pakistan, at p.46, Ahmadis in Pakistan face systemic discrimination and persecution both state-sponsored and from numerous private actors (including religious extremists as raised in the claimants’ oral evidence).²⁰

“Repressive and discriminatory legislation coupled with State-sanctioned discriminatory practices have reportedly fostered a culture of religious intolerance and impunity. Consequently, members of the Ahmadi community are reportedly left vulnerable to abuse, violence including killings, harassment and intimidation at the hands of members of the community.”

[10]     The British Home Office Report on Ahmadi Muslims²¹ documents that in 1974, the Pakistani Constitution was amended to declare Ahmadis to be “Non-Muslims“.²² This was followed by a 1984 Amendment to Pakistani Penal Code, which are ” … commonly referred to as the anti-Ahmadi laws“.²³

[11]     The objective evidence also records that the systemic state-sanctioned discrimination against Ahmadis is not palliated by correspondingly adequate internal protection. As noted in the aforementioned British Home Office Report at para. 2.5.4:

“The perpetrators of violence against religious and sectarian minorities are rarely apprehended and sentenced. There is a pattern of appeasement amongst the police of, and in some cases collusion with, religious extremists pursuing hate campaigns against the [Ahmadi] community.”²⁴

[12]     Beyond police, the NDP also documents that despite the ostensible goal for the judiciary to be “… the last resort for a persecuted individual” to benefit from the rule of law²⁵, the reality of like in Pakistan is that ” …the judiciary itself sometimes promotes tyranny“.²⁶

[13]     The panel is persuaded, based upon the objective evidence from the NDP, that as members of the Ahmadi faith, the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on this ground, throughout Pakistan, without adequate state protection.

Exclusion – Article 1E

[14]     The Minister has intervened in this matter in writing. In its “Notice of Intent to Intervene

-Exclusion 1E,”²⁷ the Minister has taken the position that because the principal claimant obtained the Permit in Italy in 2018,²⁸ he is a permanent resident of Italy, who, along with the female claimant, “…enjoy basic rights substantially similar to those of [Italy’s] nationals….”²⁹

[15]     According to the Minister, because of the Permit, the principal claimant has permanent status in Italy and rights substantially similar to nationals so as to warrant their exclusion under 1E. With respect to the female claimant, the Minister has offered that “more likely than not, [the female claimant] already has permanent resident status and/or has access to permanent resident status as she is the spouse of a permanent resident“.³⁰

[16]     According to the Minister, because the claimants both have this status in Italy, the claimants are excluded from refugee protection under the IRPA by operation of s.98 of the IRPA and Article IE of the Convention which read as follows:

“A person referred to in section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention³¹ is not a Convention Refugee or a person in need of protection”.³²

Article 1E reads:

“This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country”.³³

[17]     The potential exclusion of the claimants was the principal focus of the hearing. The leading case on exclusion under Article 1E is the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zeng³⁴ which has been applied by the panel.

Current Status of the Claimants in Italy

[18]     The Minister contends that because the claimants have status in Italy – the principal claimant by the Permit and the female claimant by marriage to the principal claimant- they have rights in Italy which are substantially similar to nationals of that country.

[19]     This determination for each claimant must be made on the evidence.

Current Status of the Principal Claimant in Italy

[20]     The panel is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, on the evidence before it, that the principal claimant was granted the Permit during 2018. However, the objective evidence of the NDP for Italy³⁵ shows that the status and rights accorded under the permit are lost by a person spending more than 12 consecutive months outside of the European Union.³⁶ Two Response to Information Requests in the NDP for Italy confirm that a Permit is “… voided if the person is absent from Europe for 12 consecutive months”.³⁷ This objective evidence further stipulates that status accorded under the Permit can be revoked if the resident no longer meets the requirements³⁸, such as an annual income requirement.³⁹

[21]     The evidence before the panel is that the claimants have been in Canada (without leaving) since XXXX 2019. Accordingly, based upon this objective evidence, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities that, at the time of the hearing, having remained out of Italy for over 12 months, the principal claimant’ s status in Italy will have expired.

Status of the Female Claimant

[22]     The Minister’s position is the female claimant acquired status in Italy under the Permit by marriage to the principal claimant. As noted in the Minister’ s Brief:

” … the Minister is of the opinion that the [female claimant] has permanent resident status in Italy via spousal sponsorship”.⁴⁰

[23]     However, in the panel’s view, this conclusion is not supported, on a balance of probabilities, by the evidence before it. Both the principal claimant and female claimant credibly testified that despite their religious marriage by proxy (from Italy and Germany respectively through the Whatsapp application) in XXXX 2016,⁴¹ attempts by the previously-married principal claimant to obtain proof from the Pakistani Consulate in Milan Italy (in the form of a “No Objection Certificate”) that he was free to enter into a civil marriage with the female claimant were refused.⁴² Similar efforts by the female claimant to register the marriage in Germany were also unsuccessful.

[24]     The evidence before the panel is that the claimants’ marriage has not been officially registered with any European authority, including in Italy. Accordingly, the panel has no evidence before it to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that any benefit would be extended to the female claimant as a spouse; or that there is any overt sponsorship or sponsorship of the female claimant under the Permit by operation of law.

[25]     Accordingly, the panel is not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the female claimant has permanent resident status in Italy or Europe or rights under the Permit.

Previous Status in Italy/EU – Principal Claimant

[26]     The objective evidence from the NDP for Italy⁴³ shows that the Permit, while conveying a wealth of substantive rights⁴⁴, confers status which is vulnerable to being lost or taken away from individuals such as the principal claimant on a variety of listed grounds.⁴⁵

[27]     As noted by the Federal Court in Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),⁴⁶ (quoting with approval Lorne Waldman, Immigration Law and Practice) at para. 35:

“If the applicant has some sort of temporary status which must be renewed, and which could be cancelled, or if the applicant does not have the right to return to the country of residence, clearly the applicant should not be excluded under Art. 1E.” [emphasis added].

[28]     In the panel’s view, the objective evidence clearly indicates that the principal claimant’s Permit could be cancelled on a number of grounds,⁴⁷ including that ” … the bearer no longer fulfills the requirements for its issue”⁴⁸ including a stipulated income requirement. ⁴⁹ In the panel’s view, the principal claimant has provided credible evidence of chronic income instability during most of his time in Italy. The panel is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant is credible in his testimony s that because of the precarious status of his employment in Italy (comprised mostly by a series of contracts with various enterprises), aside from the issue of his absence (as noted above), he is vulnerable to having the Permit revoked on the grounds that he has not met the requisite income threshold.

[29]     Per Shamlou⁵⁰, on the totality of evidence, because the Permit is vulnerable to being cancelled on multiple grounds, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant did not have status in Italy substantially similar to that of an Italian/EU national.

[30]     Further, as the panel has no evidence before it to indicate that the female claimant was conferred any rights, transitory or otherwise, under the Permit, it finds that she does not have status substantially similar to that of an Italian or EU national.

[31]     Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimants should not be excluded under Article 1E of s.98 of the IRPA.

CONCLUSION

[32]     For the reasons as above noted, the panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees and accept their claims.

(signed) Roderick Flynn        

June 15, 2021 

¹  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended (hereinafter “the IRPA”).

² Exhibit 2.1 and 2.2, “XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, (hereinafter “the

Narrative”)

³  Exhibit 2.1 and Exhibit 2.2.

⁴ Narrative, para. 1.

⁵  Ibid., para. 48.

⁶ Ibid., para. 14.

⁷ Ibid, para. 46.

⁸ Ibid, para. 16.

⁹ Ibid, para. 46.

¹⁰ Ibid., para. 35, para. 43-46.

¹¹ Exhibit 4 includes multiple identity documents for both claimants, both photographic and non-photographic, including their National Identity Cards starting at p.66.

¹² Exhibit 1.

¹³ Exhibit 4, p.1.-2.

¹⁴ Ibid, p.3.

¹⁵ Ibid., p.5-6.

¹⁶ Ibid., p.16.

¹⁷ Ibid, p.20-31.

¹⁸ Ibid, p.37-60.

¹⁹ Exhibit 3.1, NDP for Pakistan.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid, “Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Ahmadi Muslims.

²² Ibid, para. 3.1.6.

²³ Ibid, para. 5.1.1.

²⁴ Ibid, para. 2.5.4.

²⁵ Ibid, para. 8.4.11.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Exhibit 7 (hereinafter “the Brief’ or “the Minister’s Brief’).

²⁸ Narrative, para. 16; Minister’s Brief, para. 4.

²⁹ Minister’s Brief, para. 17.

³⁰ Ibid, para. 20 and 26.

³¹ Schedule to the IRPA, United Nations Convention on the Status ofRefugees.

³² IRPA, s.98.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ 2010 FCA 118 (“Zeng”).

³⁵ Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package for Italy

³⁶ Ibid, Item 3.7 “Response to Information Request (March 6, 2015). Italy: The permesso di soggiorno illimitata including its physical characteristics, requirements and procedures to obtain and renew the document, rights of holders of the document”, p.4. See also “Response to Information Request (28 February 2019). Italy: Grounds for revocation of the European Union (EU) residence permit for long-term residents (perrnesso di soggiomo UE per soggiomanti di lungo period also called perrnesso di soggiomo illimitata whether an individual who has lost their permit can apply to have it reinstated.”

³⁷ Ibid, p.4.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Ibid., p.2.

⁴⁰ Minister’s Brief, para. 26.

⁴¹ Narrative, para. 35.

⁴² Ibid, para. 37.

⁴³ Supra, note 35.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p.5.

⁴⁵ Ibid., Item 3.7, p.4

⁴⁶ (1995), 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 135 (F.C.).

⁴⁷ Supra, Note 44.

⁴⁸ Ibid, p.5, bull et 3.

⁴⁹ Ibid, p.2, para. 3.

⁵⁰ Supra, note 46.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 136
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 11, 2020
Panel: O. Adeoye
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Miranda Lim
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: TB9-13712
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000128-000133

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER:    I have considered your oral testimony and documentary evidence before me today and I am prepared to render my decision orally.

[2]       So the claimant, [XXX], claims to be a citizen of Pakistan and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DETERMINATION:

[3]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee on the Convention ground of his religion as per Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS:

[4]       The claimant’s allegations are set out in full in his narrative and Basis of Claim Form which is attached to his Basis of Claim Form. So, I would not repeat them all here, but in brief the claimant alleges that he is a devout Ahmadi from Pakistan and that Mullahs and extremists from nearby towns and villages harassed his family and members of the Ahmadi community in general.

[5]       The claimant alleged that anti-Ahmadist laws were used at him and his family members and this increased in frequency.

[6]       He further alleges that he was physically assaulted, his firm was burned down and vandalised and that they were threats of extremist attacks again Ahmadi mosque, businesses, and other institutions in the city.

[7]       The claimant alleges that himself and his family members have faced lifelong discrimination and harassment in Pakistan because of their Ahmadi religion and that due to this persecution, his children all five of them don’t live in Pakistan anymore, they currently live in Canada and Germany.

[8]       The claimant left Pakistan on [XXX] 2019, and made a claim for refugee protection and made the claim for refugee protection in [XXX] 2019.

[9]       The claimant fears harm at the hands of the extremists and also the inability to practice his religion openly and freely without fear in Pakistan.

ANALYSIS:

PERSONAL IDENTITY:

[10]     I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has established his personal identity as a citizen of Pakistan based on a certified true copy of his Pakistani passport attached to Exhibit 1. I further find that the claimant is an Ahmadi based on the documentary evidence he submitted into evidence.

CREDIBILITY:

[11]     Overall, despite the claimant’s age, I found the claimant to be very credible witness on a balance of probabilities on what is core to his claim and also I found the claimant to be able to recall specific incidents that occurred over the years, this also includes incidents that relates to his persecution due to his religion as an Ahmadi from Pakistan.

[12]     I therefore believe what the claimant has alleged in support of his claim.

[13]     The claimant testified in a straightforward manner, there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimonies or contradictions between this testimony and the other evidence before me that they were not satisfactorily explained.

[14]     The claimant provided sincere and heartfelt oral testimony about his beliefs and the persecution he faced in Pakistan. The claimant’s evidence is not internally inconsistent or implausible or contradicted by documentary evidence or country conditions in Pakistan.

[15]     In coming to my credibility findings, I also considered the numerous specific documents turn out into evidence by the claimant in support of his allegations.

[16]     The panel also does not have sufficient reasons to discount these documents which includes the claimant’s Ahmadi certificate, Ahmadi identity cards from Pakistan and Canada, Ahmadi donation receipts from Pakistan and Canada, Ahmadi executive appointment letter, Ahmadi [XXX] documents, various letters from the Ahmadi [XXX] contained in an old journal, photos with the Ahmadi [XXX], land ownership documents, claimant’s other identity documents.

[17]     Based on all the evidence before me which includes the testimony of the claimant which I found to be credible, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has established his religious profile as an Ahmadi from Pakistan.

REAVAILMENT:

[18]     I had concerns about the claimant’s reavailment to Pakistan in 2008 and the panel therefore accepts the claimant’s explanation in regard to his re-availment and however finds that the claimant’s reavailment is not determinative of his claim.

[19]     I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is credible, accept his allegations as credible and that the claimant has established his subjective fear.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR, STATE PROTECTION AND INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE:

[20]     As it relates to the well-foundedness of the claimant’s fear of persecution, I find that claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective documentary evidence before me on which I would go over.

[21]     In this case, the claimant alleges that he suffered discrimination in daily life in Pakistan and that should he return to Pakistan he would continue to face the societal discrimination and be unable to openly and freely practice his faith without fear and will continue to be target for violence by extremist and Mullahs.

[22]     I find that these allegations are indeed supported by the mutual documentary evidence contained in the National Documentation Package.

[23]     According to the National Documentation Package, Ahmadis in Pakistan are discriminated against in law, also Pakistan laws prohibit Ahmadis from identifying themselves as Muslims.

[24]     Their freedom of religion has been curtailed by series of ordinances, acts and constitutional amendments.

[25]     Also when applying for passport Pakistanis are required to declare that the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is an imposter prophet and therefore the followers are non-Muslims.

[26]     Ahmadis are also discriminated against by Pakistan society in general and sometimes are also targets for violence by extremists which include being accused of blasphemy.

[27]     According to Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package, the executive summary sets out the current political and general human rights issues in Pakistan.

[28]     This report confronts that discrimination against religious minorities continued in 2008 in Pakistan and violence and social religious intolerance by militant organization and other non­governmental actors contributed to culture of lawlessness in some parts of the country.

[29]     Also, according to 2013 report, AHLC report attached to the National Documentation Package, the Pakistani government proactively victimizes Ahmadis socially, economically, and educationally.

[30]     According to 2015 report by FIDH, discrimination against Ahmadis is enforced through public policies limiting their access to education, professional opportunities and basic political and civil rights, such as pledging, which means if an Ahmadi applicant wishes to identify, that means an Ahamdi, okay, so I leave that.

VIOLENCE:

[31]     According to the HRCP that’s the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, seven Ahmadis were killed in 2013 and 16 were assaulted, some were nearly fatal injuries on account of their faith also Al­-Jazeera reports that from January to August 2014, 13 Ahmadis were killed and 12 assaulted for practicing their faith in most were the result of targeted attacks on the individuals.

[32]     These documents clearly demonstrate that Ahmadis are discriminated against in law by society at large in Pakistan and as well are sometimes the targets for violence, abuse by Islamic extremists.

[33]     The document also suggests a recent trend of increasing violence against Ahmadis in Pakistan.

[34]     The aforementioned neutral sources support the claimant’s allegations that the claimant had a serious possibility of suffering serious harm if he were to return to Pakistan.

STATE PROTECTION:

[35]     I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that adequate State protection is not available to him. In this case above, the State is one of the agents of persecution.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE:

[36]     I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant in Pakistan as the State is one of agents of harm.

CONCLUSION:

[37]     Therefore I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the basis of his religion and I therefore accept his claim and I therefore find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.

[38]     This will conclude the hearing for today.

[39]     Madam Interpreter, so I said this will conclude the hearing for today, is there anything you need to summarize to him before I formally end the hearing?

[40]     INTERPRETER:      Yes, Member, I will summarise everything else and I will give him all the details of what you just said.

[41]     MEMBER:    Okay, can you go ahead.

[42]     CLAIMANT: Okay.

[43]     MEMBER:    Okay good, so I need to confirm your address, so I have [XXX] okay is that correct?

[44]     CLAIMANT: Yes, it is correct.

[45]     MEMBER:    [XXX], okay you will get a copy of the transcribed decision, so this will finally conclude the hearing, I am going to go off the record in the absence of any questions, concerns, okay, thank you everyone. Thank you Madam Interpreter.

[46]     INTERPRETER:      Thank you Member, thank you very much.

[47]     MEMBER:    Thank you so much, I will be going off the record.

[48]     INTERPRETER:      Thank you very much everyone.

[49]     MEMBER:    Thank you, bye, bye.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2020 RLLR 56
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 9, 2020
Panel: R. Moutafova
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter J Wuebbolt 
Country: Pakistan 
RPD Number: TB8-13720
Associated RPD Numbers: TB8-13781, TB8-13786, TB8-13787
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000177-000188

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       [XXX] (father and a principal claimant), his wife [XXX] (mother and an associate claimant), and their two children [XXX] (the adult child-claimant) and [XXX] (the minor claimant), are citizens of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereafter Pakistan). They are claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and s. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act¹, hereafter “the IRPA“.

[2]       The claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 (1) of the Refugee Protection Division Rules².

[3]       The principal claimant was appointed as the designated representative for the minor claimant.

[4]       The Chairperson’s Guideline 4³ – Women Refugee Claimant’s Fearing Gender-Related Persecution was used to help assess the circumstances of this claim that may affect findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law.

Procedural history

[5]       The claims were heard on May 31, 2019, however the member of the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB did not render decision on the merits of the claims. The IRB decided to administratively re-hear the claims in a DeNovo hearing, presided over by another member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Board. This DeNovo hearing was held on September 17, 2020

DETERMINATION

[6]       The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants are Convention refugees on the grounds of their views on religion which places them as Members of a Particular Social Group. Their religious views are of moderate Sunni Muslims with humanitarian and liberal mindset, who do not support the Jihad and the fundamentalism in Pakistan, and who are against the religious extremists’ methods of suiciding attacks against their perceived enemies.

[7]       The reasons are as follows.

ALLEGATIONS

[8]       The complete story alleging the basis of the Claimants’ fear is captured in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms⁴, and was expanded upon in testimony by the three adult claimants. In short, the claimants fear that they will be harmed or killed by religious extremists and fundamentalists in Pakistan stemming from their unsuccessful attempt to recruit the son of the family (the adult child-claimant) as a Jihadist solder and a suicide bomber.

[9]       Both parents are university educated individuals from Karachi. The family has only one son – the adult child-claimant, who is hafiz, a person who has memorised the Quran in Arabic language (the native language of the claimants is Urdu.). For this purpose, since the age of four he had attended a special religious school and had completed six classes, where he had studied also subjects from the general educational curriculum. He had obtained two Certificates for his achievements in the memorizing of the Quran.

[10]     Then he continued his education in a secular, international private school in Karachi. As a devoted Muslim, in performing his duties to volunteer and help those in need, and also to maintain his memory about the verses of the Quran, he attended the [XXX] 3 days at the end of each week. There he was teaching the Quran to younger children who were from poor families and were receiving free board, food and religious education in the [XXX] at the mosque. The adult child-claimant was also praying in this mosque with his father on the Fridays.

[11]     In the month of [XXX] 2017 several unknown and unintroduced men began appearing at the classes with the children (students) and began talking about Islam and about Jihad. They interpreted for the children some Qur’anic passages that refer to the Jihad and explained the meaning of the Quran as requesting the true Muslims to be part of Jihad. They spoke about the purpose in life as per the Qur’an and that being a better Muslim means fight against the non­believers like Christians, Ahmadi, Shia Muslims, etc. The men were not friendly, they tried to instill fear in the students and warned them to keep secret the meetings with the men and threatened them with death if they would dare to speak with anybody else about these teachings. The unknown men gave away written materials with information, purporting to be the right interpretation of the Qur’an and appealing to the readers to be true Muslims and followers of the Qur’an by joining Jihad.

[12]     These materials were found inadvertently by the mother of the adult child-claimant (the associate claimant) and alarmed her. She asked her son for explanation, but he was very scared and did not tell her anything about the source of the materials. She sent her husband (the PC) to the [XXX] to inquire what is happening and the source of the materials.

[13]     The father attended the [XXX] and was assured by the management that there is no danger of fundamentalism of the students there. However, the extremists continued to visit the classes in the [XXX] and the adult child-claimant became more and more scared with each visit. The mother continued to invite explanations from her son about the Jihad literature and he eventually confided what is going on. Thus, the parents prohibited their adult child-claimant to continue to teach in the [XXX], which was not taken well by the administration there.

[14]     The management of the [XXX] tried multiple times to pressure the claimants to send back their son and initially the claimants were providing medical-problem-excuses for their son not attending any more. Eventually they got the courage to state, that their son – the adult child­ claimant is not going to attend any mote and immediately they were threatened over the phone by the administrator of the [XXX]. They started receiving calls from unknow persons threatening that they will regret if disobey and do not send again the son back to the [XXX]. The claimants filed a complaint with the police on [XXX] 2018.

[15]     Further, the threatening phone calls continued and even on one occasion unknown people visited the family, angry from the disobedience to the orders the son to return to the [XXX]. They repeated the death threats against the entire family again.

[16]     Few days later, on [XXX] 2017 a stone with a life-threatening letter around it was thrown through the window of the claimants. The letter was accusing them as infidels, deserving to be killed, because they vive western education of their children and engage in un-Islamic activities. A second complaint was immediately filed with the police⁵, which did not investigate any of the complaints.

[17]     The adult child-claimant fell ill from fear. When recovered, he did not go any more to the [XXX], but he continued to attend his international high school. The commute to and back from the private school was arranged with a special school bus. Nevertheless, one day an unknown person attempted to pick up the boy after school. The security prevented the attempt and alarmed the administration and the family.

[18]     The Police refused to accept any more complaints and to be involved in a such religios issue, which they pretended to be a minor, unimportant dispute about the education of the son. Understanding that no protection is coming, the scared family moved immediately to Islamabad, where they stayed with a cousin. The threatening phone calls continued on the cell phone of the mother, insisting that the adult child-claimant get back to the [XXX]. The claimants arranged their travel to Canada and arrived on [XXX] 2018. They were planning that the PC would be able to make some alternative arrangements for their safe return and residence back in Pakistan.

[19]     The PC, who was working for the [XXX], and could not take a longer leave from his job, returned in Karachi on [XXX] 2018. He took precautious measures and stayed at his brother, visiting his home rarely only at night to pick documents and things of necessity.

[20]     Encouraged that everything seems calm, one night, on [XXX] 2018, the PC stayed in the house and on the next day, when leaving for his prayer, he saw many abusive slogans painted on the house. He left quickly for his brother, but on his way he was attacked and shot at by two individuals on a motorbike. The PC arrived back in Canada on [XXX] 2018 and the entire family applied for refugee protection three days later.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[21]     The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that all claimants have provided sufficient documentation to establish their personal identities and citizenship in Pakistan, based on their testimony and the certified true copies of their Government of Pakistan passports.⁶

Religious identity

[22]     The panel is satisfied that the mother and associate claimant are Shia Muslim and that the father and principal claimant are Sunni Muslim, based on the testimony of the adult claimants, the donation receipts from [XXX] and personal documents provided into evidence⁷. The claimants explained that they are cousins and the differences in their religious views have never been an issue, because the extended family has broad, liberal, humanitarian views on religion and on the individual liberty.

[23]     The panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, that the adult child-claimant, is hafiz, a person who had memorised the Quran. He submitted two Certificates from the [XXX] from 2011 and 2012 for his achievements in memorization of the Holy Quran⁸. The claimant testified personally about his study experience and was able to demonstrate his knowledge by reciting verses from the Quran by heart in Arabic language. The panel is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the adult child-claimant is a Sunni Muslim and hafiz.

NEXUS

[24]     The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees in that they have a well-founded fear of persecution from religious extremists due to their humanitarian and liberal religious views on Islam, and, thus, the nexus to the Convention is their membership in a particular social group.

CREDIBILITY

[25]     All three adult claimants provided testimony. The panel finds that the claimants are credible on the material aspects of their claims – specifically the panel finds that the adult child­ claimant is hafiz and that while teaching classes of poor children, boarding and studying in the local [XXX], he had been identified and targeted by extremists over a couple of meetings, who tried to pursue him to join Jihad and become a suicide bomber.

[26]     Generally speaking, the claimants’ testimony was direct, sincere, detailed and spontaneous. Overall, the panel did not find any contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or implausibility regarding any aspects of their account which could have undermined the credibility of their statements. They provided many details of the events, that have led to their fleeing Pakistan. In coming to this finding on credibility the panel also considered the numerous claimant-specific documents tendered into evidence⁹ by the claimants to support their allegations, namely: school documents, reports to the police, First Information Reports to the police, affidavits from eye eyewitnesses of the kidnapping incident from the school, letters of support from family members, letters from [XXX] from Pakistan and from Canada about the affiliation of the claimants, birth and death certificates, employment history records.

[27]     The panel finds that the claimants were credible witnesses and did not find any discrepancies or inconsistencies between their testimony and the documents they submitted. The panel finds, that the evidence before the panel establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the adult child-claimant was a victim, together with the [XXX] boarding school children, of persuasion to join the Jihad and attempt to be recruited as a suicide bomber. When his parents intervened and stopped him from further attending the [XXX] and meetings with the religious extremists, the entire family was targeted for harm by the particular individuals, belonging to the religious extremists and fundamentalists in Karachi, Pakistan.

Objective basis of future risk

[28]     Based on the credibility of the claimants’ allegations, and the documentary evidence set out above, the panel finds that the claimants have established a future risk to their lives and that they will be subjected to violence at the hands of Islamic extremists in Pakistan, owing to their identities of mixed family of Shia and Sunni Muslim, who has liberal and moderate religious views and is against Jihad, promulgated by religious extremists and fundamentalists.

[29]     The objective documentary evidence that corroborate the allegations of the claimants are found in many documents: In item 1.18 of the NDP on Pakistan (NDP)¹⁰ the UK Home Office informs about the report of the UN Secretary General (UNSG) on Children and armed conflict, dated 16 May 2018, where is noted:

“The United Nations continued to receive reports of the recruitment and use of children, including from madrasas, and allegations of the use of children by armed groups for suicide attacks. In January [2017], TTP released a video showing children, including girls, being instructed in how to perpetrate suicide attacks.”

Further, the UK Home Office advises that According to the USSD human rights report for 2017:

“Nonstate militant groups kidnapped boys and girls and used fraudulent promises to coerce parents into giving away children as young as 12 to spy, fight, or die as suicide bombers. The militants sometimes offered parents money, often sexually and physically abused the children, and used psychological coercion to convince the children the acts they committed were justified. The government operated a center in Swat to rehabilitate and educate former child soldiers.”

[30]     The suicide attacks are already part of the contemporary mode of terrorism of the militant groups. Item 7.1 of the NDP about the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) militant group in Pakistan from the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reports that JeM was the first jihadi organization to launch suicide attacks (…) in 2002. Sources indicate that the group’s attacks are aimed at killing the maximum number of people, including security force personnel and civilians, targeting the Pakistani state and sectarian minorities. Despite bans on JeM’s activities, the group continues to operate openly in different areas of Pakistan and has claimed to have 300 suicide bombers available to attack (…).

[31]     In a June 2010 article¹¹, The Economist quoted a Lahore-based political analyst as saying that:

“[t]he Punjab government is not only complacent, there is a certain ambivalence in their attitude’ towards extremists…..They compete for the religious vote bank”‘ (The Economist 3 June 2010). The same source states that as the death toll grows, so do concerns that even the appearance of official tolerance gives these organisations legitimacy……The Federal Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, declared that an “operation” was needed to clear out the Punjabi groups. He claimed that 44% of Pakistan’s madrassas – Islamic seminaries – are based in south Punjab and that groups like (…..) Jaish-e­Mohammed are “part of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.”

Reavailment

[32]     The panel had concerns about the reavailment of the PC back to Pakistan after arriving in Canada and leaving his family here. The PC testified that he was having a lucrative employment in the [XXX] in Karachi and that he was not planning to seek refugee protection in Canada, when he fled Pakistan with his family after the incident, that looked like an attempt of kidnapping of his son. The PC testified that the family was planning to re-locate somewhere in Pakistan and he returned to maintain his job while obtaining re­ assignment or finding another solution for re-location. However, upon his return in Pakistan, although the precautionary measures, he became a victim of an assassination attack and his house was vandalized with abusive slogans with religious context. This made him re-assess the threats from the religious extremists and fundamentalists for the entire family and to find them real and inevitable. This is when he decided to seek protection from Canada.

[33]     The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the explanations of the claimant were reasonable and credible and that in the circumstances, the PC’s individual return to Pakistan does not amount to re-availment demonstrating a lack of subjective fear.

State Protection

[34]     The claimants alleged that the state is unable or unwilling to provide them with adequate protection. The objective documentary evidence indicates that there is a lack of rule of law in Pakistan, including a lack of due process and a lack of government accountability. This means that abuse often goes unpunished, fostering a culture of impunity amongst perpetrators. The claimants have previously sought police protection in Pakistan, which was not provided to them due to unwillingness of the Police to be involved in such sensitive religious issue with violent agents of persecution/harm. The NDP contains numerous reports that outline deficiencies and inaction from state authorities in situations such as those, alleged by the claimants. There are reports that law enforcement authorities are often unwilling, or even when they are willing, are unable to protect from the attacks of religious extremists. Pakistani authorities have faced criticism for their failure to protect religious violence, for permitting militant organizations to operate with impunity, and for not investigating and punishing the groups responsible for violent attacks.¹² The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom described the response of the Pakistani government as “grossly inadequate state protection for Shia Muslims.”¹³ That same report notes that “the government has proven unwilling or unable to crack down on groups that repeatedly plan, conduct, and claim credit for attacks, or prevent future violence.”¹⁴

[35]     Further the reports inform that:

“Pakistan’s police system suffers severe deficiencies in a number of areas, including equipment, technology, personnel, training, and intelligence capability. They are considered one of the most corrupt institutions in Pakistan. There have also been reports that the police have often failed to protect members of religious minorities, women and the poor.”¹⁵

[36]     In addition, the News International, a Pakistani newspaper, stated in a 3 March 2014 article that, according to the NISP, there are a total of 60 banned organizations in Pakistan, including JeM, and although the government has taken steps to ban certain organizations, “metamorphism” of these groups and “implementation gaps” remain a challenge for the government’s internal security mechanisms.

[37]     The panel, therefore, concludes that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

Internal flight alternative (IFA)

[38]     The panel inquired as to whether the claimants could relocate to Hyderabad or Multan, or DG Khan and live safely. The male claimant testified that nowhere is safe for them in Pakistan and they would be at high risk of harm by the extremist organizations who would try to hurt him and his family.

[39]     The panel finds that there is a well-founded fear of persecution which exists throughout the country, and there’s a serious possibility of persecution throughout Pakistan for the claimants. The conclusion is based not only on the statements by the claimants above, but also on evidence in the NDP, which indicates that, in general, an internal flight alternative would not be available where there is a likelihood that persons such as the claimants would be persecuted by extremists for their perceived un-Islamic position with respect to Jihad.

[40]     There are reports within the documentary evidence that given the wide geographic presence and reach of religious extremists or anti-Shia militant groups, a viable internal flight alternative would generally not be available to individuals at risk of being targeted by such groups, as is the family of the claimants, which is of mixed reldigion: Sunni and Shia Muslim and which opposed involvement of their son in Jihad. The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of the claimants being persecuted throughout the country given their profile and the reach of the agents of persecution.

[41]     Given the objective documentary evidence cited above regarding state protection and the claimants’ testimony the panel finds that there is no viable IFA for these claimants in Pakistan at this time.

CONCLUSION

[42]     Based on the analysis above and to the relevant provisions of IRPA, the panel concludes that the claimants do have a well-founded fear of persecution on Convention grounds and, therefore, are Convention refugees, within the meaning of section 96 of IRPA.

[43]     Therefore, the panel accepts these claims for refugee protection.

(signed)           R. Moutafova

October 9, 2020

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. (2001), c. 27, as amended.
² Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR 2012/256.
³ Chairperson ‘s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the IRPA.
⁴ Exhibits # 2.1, 2.2, 2.3.
⁵ Exhibit # 8: Disclosure – Personal documents.
⁶ Exhibit # 4.1.
⁷ Exhibit # 8.
⁸ Idem.
⁹ Idem.
¹⁰ Exhibit # 3 – NDP on Pakistan, version from 31 March 2020.
¹¹ Idem, item 7.1.
¹² Idem, item 1.8: UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, January 2017.
¹³ Idem, items## 12.5 and 1.22.
¹⁴ Idem, item 12.5.
¹⁵ Idem.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 44
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 25, 2020
Panel: D. Marcovitch
Counsel for the Claimant(s): John Savalgio 
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: TB9-15066
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000100-000105

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The claimant, [XXX] claims as a citizen of Pakistan and seeks refugee protection pursuant to subsections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA“).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form² and amendment.³ In summary, the claimant is a [XXX] man who was born to a Sunni Muslim family in Sialkot, Punjab province on [XXX]. He alleges a fear of persecution from the Sunni extremist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (“LeJ”) as a result of his conversion from the Sunni sect to the Shia sect and his active Shia religious practices.

[3]       On or about [XXX] 2019, the claimant traveled from [XXX]. Then, on or about [XXX] 2019 the claimant travelled from [XXX] Canada, via [XXX] and arrived in Canada on [XXX] 2019. On or about June 11, 2019, the claimant’s refugee claim was referred to the Refugee Protection Board (the “Board”).

DETERMINATION

[4]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 of IRPA.

ANALYSIS

Nexus

[5]       I find that the claimant has a nexus to the Convention ground of religion, based on his allegations of having converted from the Sunni to Shia sect and consequent persecution alleged.

Identity

[6]       I accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is a citizen of Pakistan on the basis of his Islamic Republic of Pakistan passport⁴ which was seized by Immigration, Citizenship and Refugees Canada (IRCC) when the claim was filed.

[7]       Further, I also accept on a balance of probabilities that the claimant converted from the Sunni sect to the Shia sect of Islam, based on his testimony and support letters from friends, [XXX] officials, religious leaders and family. I find on a balance of probabilities that the letters from the claimant’s father and the [XXX] of the [XXX] that the claimant’s father belonged to, establish that the claimant was formerly a follower of the Sunni Islam sect.

Credibility

[8]       I had certain issues with the claimant’s credibility stemming from the fact that he paid the equivalent of approximately [XXX] CAD to an agent, while he was still working in [XXX] in order to secure Visa’s to various countries around the world, including Canada. I note that the claimant spent this money after converting to the Shia sect, but prior to having any threats made against his life in Pakistan. I asked the claimant why he would have spent [XXX] CAD to get the Visa’s if there were no threat to his life. The claimant testified that he did so just to be safe in case he experienced problems related to his Shia conversion or feared for his safety. I find that such an explanation is unreasonable in these particular circumstances. I find that spending such a significant amount of money for a ‘just in case’ situation where he would not have used the Visa’s if nothing transpired on his return to Pakistan, is implausible. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant spent [XXX] CAD to get the assistance of an agent and associated travel visa’s because it was always his intention to leave Pakistan even though he had not yet experienced any persecution at the time the Visa’s were acquired.

[9]       However, having made the above noted findings, I recognize that the above noted issues neither go to the core of the claim, nor should the implausibility finding, without more, lead to a negative decision.

[10]     While the above noted issues certainly raise questions, by inference, as to the credibility of the claimant’s allegations concerning what happened to him after he returned to Pakistan from [XXX], I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has provided sufficient corroborative evidence of his faith and activities once he was back in Pakistan, that I am unable to deny the credibility the allegations that go to the heart of his claim.

[11]     I note that the claimant provided hospital records and a First Information Report (“FIR”) that corroborate his allegations of having been attacked and injured after he left his [XXX] on [XXX] 2019. The claimant’s allegations in his BOC regarding this attack and the details contained in the FIR largely corroborate each other. The primary difference is that the FIR does not mention the LeJ as the claimant’s attackers, but rather as local, unknown extremist persons.

[12]     I also accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant fled [XXX] and went to [XXX] prior to leaving Pakistan based on the support letter from [XXX], who the claimant stayed with in [XXX].

Well-Foundedness

[13]     There is considerable documentary evidence⁵ before the panel that supports the claim that there are significant problems in Pakistan for Shia Muslims in general and Sunni to Shia Converts in particular.

[14]     I note that in a Response to Information Request at NDP Item 12.56 it is stated that, “[s]ectarian violence in Pakistan has historically targeted individuals, places of worship, shrines and religious schools, however Shi’a traditionally represented a higher proportion of the casualties,” noting that Shia face threats from anti-Shia militant groups, including Lashkar-e­ Jhangvi (LeJ), which “seeks to have Shi’a declared ‘non-believers’ or apostates,” as well as from Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), also known as Ahl-e-Sunnat-Wal-Jamaat (ASWJ), LeJ al-Alami, and other factions of the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) (Australia 20 Feb. 2019, para. 3.99).” I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution in Pakistan is well-founded.

State Protection

[15]     The UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities From Pakistan⁷ dated January 2017, states, that “[T]he government has been criticized for failing to protect Shi’ite Muslims from attacks, and for allowing militant organizations to operate with impunity by failing to investigate and punish those responsible for violent attacks against Shi’ites in Pakistan.”

[16]     Further, the same UNHCR document notes that “[E]ven where the police have been present they have reportedly been unable to stop attacks; analysts have described the authorities as indifferent, incompetent or even complicit in the violence and discrimination against Shi’ites.”

[17]     As a result, and given that authorities in Pakistan did not appear to assist/protect the claimant beyond taking the FIR, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant did not receive adequate state protection in the past and nor would he receive it in the future. I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[18]     The claimant testified that should he return to Pakistan today, he would be killed by the LeJ or other extremist religious militant groups due to his Shia religious activities. Based on the evidence adduced, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant came to the attention of the LeJ and is currently being pursued to stop his Shia activities. I find that while the claimant has only recently become an active and outwardly practicing Shia convert in Pakistan, I find that the evidence suggests that the LeJ has been looking for him in locations other than his home town of Sialkot and they also have his photograph as shown on the placard for the [XXX] mourning event on [XXX] 2019. I therefore find that there is no Internal Flight Alternative for this claimant because the LeJ tracked him down to a friend’s house in Lahore and have therefore shown a continuing interest in the claimant.  Further, even if the claimant were able to safely relocate in the short term to Hyderabad, I find that his active faith and sponsorship of [XXX] activities would create a serious possibility that he would eventually be found and persecuted in the future.

[19]     Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence adduced, I find that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant will be persecuted by religious militant groups on account of being a Sunni to Shia convert and perceived to be active in Pakistan’s Shia Muslim community.

[20]     In light of my finding that the claimant is a Convention refugee, it is unnecessary to consider his claim under s.97(1).

[21]     This claim is accepted.

(signed)           D. Marcovitch

September 25, 2020

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C.2001, c. 27, as amended by the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, S.C. 2012, c.17 (the “Act” or “IRPA”).
² Exhibit 2.
³ Exhibit 7
⁴ Exhibit 1.
⁵ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Pakistan (March 31, 2020) and Exhibit 5.
⁶ Exhibit 3, NDP (March 31, 2020), tab 12.5: Situation and treatment of Shia [Shi’a, Shi’i, Shiite] Muslims, including Hazaras and Turi, particularly in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, and Hyderabad; state response to violence against Shias (2017-January 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 January 2020. PAK106393.E.
⁷ Exhibit 3, NDP for Pakistan (March 31, 2020), item 1.8, at p. 54.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 33
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 7, 2020
Panel: Samantha Bretholz
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tony Manglaviti 
Country: Pakistan 
RPD Number: MB8-20495
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000016-000023

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       [XXX] (the Claimant), a citizen of Pakistan, claims refugee protection in Canada pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)¹.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The Claimant alleges that he was working in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a [XXX] while his wife and son were residing in Pakistan with his parents and siblings. The Claimant discussed how there was a general atmosphere of apprehension over [XXX] in the UAE, as foreign workers were beginning to be replaced with local Arab employees. On one of his biannual trips to visit his family in [XXX], Pakistan, he befriended [XXX] (the Mullah), a cleric at the mosque in his village, given that he was of the view that in the, not too distant, future he might be sent back to Pakistan from the UAE and he was looking to make connections in his home town. He developed a relationship with the Mullah and he introduced the Claimant to [XXX] ([XXX]) while on a subsequent trip to Pakistan in [XXX] 2018. The Claimant stated that [XXX] tried to pose himself as a scholar of Islam and contemporary issues, and they would speak about the greatness of Jihad.

[3]       The Claimant returned to the UAE in [XXX] 2018 to continue working. In [XXX] 2018, the Claimant stated that he received a call from [XXX] asking him to donate one million rupees for the Taliban Jihad. The Claimant refused, stating that the Jihad of [XXX] is sedition, and he would not pledge one penny to this cause. The Claimant stated that [XXX] responded by stating that the Taliban would have to now get involved to handle this case.

[4]       On [XXX], 2018, the Claimant stated that his family in [XXX] received a letter from the Taliban stating that if he did not pay, then they would kill him upon his return to Pakistan. In [XXX] 2018, the Claimant alleges to have received a call while in the UAE telling him to pay and that if he didn’t comply there were people in the UAE that would take care of him. The Claimant stated that the caller accurately described his daily movements, visits and schedule which led him to believe that he was being watched and followed in the UAE. Fearful that both his job was not secure and fearing for his life in Pakistan, the Claimant left the UAE for the United States of American on [XXX], 2018, to claim asylum.

[5]       Following his departure from the UAE, the Claimant alleges that the Taliban issued a fatwa (the Fatwa) against him stating that he was a kafir (an infidel), they have added his name to a “hit list” and information about him has been passed on to their expansive networks throughout Pakistan to find and kill him. Following the issuance of the Fatwa, the Claimant stated that police attended at his family’s home in [XXX] looking for the Claimant, and stated that he is to appear at the police station for the purposes of investigating a religious complaint. He further asserts that the police continue to attend at his family’s home every 3-6 months looking for him.

[6]       In an amendment to his Basis of Claim form (BOC)², the Claimant advanced that in [XXX] 2020 his relatives stated that the Fatwa was being distributed at a mosque in Karachi, which is located at the other end of Pakistan, over [XXX] km away from [XXX].

[7]       The Claimant fears the Mullah, [XXX], the Taliban, the Pakistani police and now the general population who would glean favour for killing an infidel.

DETERMINATION

[8]       Having considered the evidence and the Claimant’s testimony in its entirety, the Panel concludes that the Claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution, based upon his imputed religious opinion.

[9]       For the reasons that follow, the Panel finds that the Claimant is a “Convention refugee” under Section 96 of the IRPA, and accepts his claim.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10]     The Claimant’ s personal and national identity as a citizen of Pakistan is established, on a balance of probabilities, by way of a certified true copy of his Pakistani passport, including the United States Visa that the Claimant used to travel to the United States³.

Credibility

[11]     The Panel finds the Claimant to be a credible witness and believes, on a balance of probabilities, the key allegations of his claim. The Claimant testified in a straightforward, spontaneous, detailed, and sincere manner. The Panel did not find that the Claimant embellished his story or tried to exaggerate the allegations during his testimony.

[12]     The Panel also noted that there were no significant contradictions, inconsistencies, or omissions between the Claimant’s Basis of Claim BOC, his testimony at the hearing or the documentary evidence submitted. The testimony of the Claimant also included additional details which were not in the BOC and added to the credibility of the story.

[13]     The Claimant spoke and wrote in detail about his views of Islam. He is more open-minded, liberal and egalitarian given the years he has spent in a more moderate society, in the UAE. He described the various threats against him which began with demands, then led to telephone calls, visits by the police and ultimately culminated in the issuance and distribution of a fatwa.

[14]     The Panel believes, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant is targeted and continues to be targeted by the Mullah, [XXX], members of the Taliban and the police (collectively, the Agents of Persecution). Given that there was an announcement at the local mosque declaring that a fatwa was issued against the Claimant by the Taliban, the Claimant contends that he can become a target of any extremist who believes it is their duty to kill him in the name of religion.

[15]     In furtherance of the foregoing, the Claimant also disclosed a number of supporting documents, including a letter from the Taliban⁴, the Fatwa⁵, a letter from his Pakistani lawyer⁶, an affidavit from his father⁷ and his wife⁸, and a recent letter of public gathering with the Mullah and XXXX as guest speakers⁹, all of which are uncontradicted and which corroborate the Claimant’s testimony.

Objective Evidence

[16]     The objective documentary evidence provides that blasphemy and other offences relating to religion are criminalized in Pakistan under Articles 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Punishment for blasphemy is death¹⁰. “The introduction of the blasphemy laws in the [Pakistani] Penal Code has reportedly fostered an atmosphere of religious intolerance (…). The blasphemy laws have also come under strong criticism for fuelling extremist violence and targeted attacks against individuals from religious minority groups¹¹.” “In 2017, the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) reported an increase in blasphemy-related violence, use of religious rhetoric, incitement of hatred and discrimination against minority groups. The HRCP noted the government failed to repeal discriminatory laws. Local and international observers report increasing misuse of blasphemy laws, and a widening of actions considered chargeable blasphemy offences¹².”

[17]     While Pakistani’s blasphemy laws purport to protect religious sentiments, sources have expressed concerns over the use of the laws by individuals apparently for other motives. These motives might include, and consistent with the case at hand, personal or religious disputes. The effect of these laws violates the rights to life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, and freedom of opinion and expression¹³.

[18]     Further, the law has been described as vaguely formulated, and enforced by the police, prosecutors, and judiciary in proceedings that often violate the right to a fair trial, including the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence where prosecution proceed on the basis of unfounded accusations by complainants. Death sentences have been imposed, in violation of international law, on people convicted of blasphemy¹⁴.

[19]     Religious clerics, such as the Mullah in the foregoing case, hold significant power in the registration of blasphemy cases. Their opinions are frequently sought by complainants, and often also by the police as part of their investigation. Faced with pressure from religious clerics and their supporters, the police may forward a case to the prosecutor on the basis of insubstantial evidence. Police rely on fatwas from local clerics to determine whether the allegations amount to blasphemy, even though they have no legal evidentiary value¹⁵.

[20]     The laws have created an environment in which some people, including complainants and their supporters in blasphemy cases, believe themselves entitled to take the law into their own hands, while the police stand aside. The laws have been used as a cover for perpetrators of mob violence¹⁶.  There is a lack of a consistent, robust and timely response by the authorities to situations of such violence. The lack of response, and the failure to prosecute rigorously and promptly those responsible, leads to a climate of impunity for perpetrators of further such attacks¹⁷.

[21]     Given the foregoing, together with the numerous articles on blasphemy provided by counsel¹⁸, the Panel finds that the Claimant’s allegations are consistent with the objective evidence and therefore the Panel concludes that his subjective fear is objectively well founded. In addition to the articles on blasphemy, counsel also submitted numerous articles regarding the continued pervasiveness of the Taliban in Pakistan¹⁹.

[22]     The Panel concludes that the Claimant has met his burden of proof and has demonstrated that he would face a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground if he returns to Pakistan.

State Protection

[23]     The Claimant fears religious fundamentalists/extremists, in particular the Taliban, the Mullah and [XXX]. The Panel notes that the documentary evidence provides that there is a general lack of rule of law in Pakistan²⁰, including a lack of due process, poor implementation and enforcement of laws and frequent mob violence and vigilante justice with limited accountability²¹.

[24]     The power wielded by the religious clerics, combined with the high level of corruption within the police force and the lack of political will in Pakistan to address said corruption leads the Panel to conclude that adequate state protection would not reasonably be likely to be forthcoming to the Claimant, should he return to Pakistan. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Claimant has rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[25]     The Panel finds that the Claimant has a credible fear of being persecuted by Muslim extremists, including the Taliban, throughout Pakistan and that, therefore, there is no possibility of a viable internal refuge anywhere in that country. The Panel is guided by the documentary evidence which provides that if the agents of persecution are armed militant groups, they may not be safe anywhere due to their wide geographical reach²². The Taliban is a major terrorist group in Pakistan focused on conducting terrorist attacks against the military and civilians in Pakistan²³. Growing religious extremism in Pakistan threatens its security and stability, as well as freedom of expressing and other fundamental human rights²⁴. Besides the militant groups’ ability to find the Claimant, there are examples in the documentary evidence where vigilante justice was perpetrated against people accused of blasphemy by religious clerics.

[26]     Given the totality of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Claimant has a credible fear of being persecuted throughout Pakistan and that, therefore, there is no possibility of a viable IFA anywhere in that country.

CONCLUSION

[27]     Having considered the evidence, including the relevant documentary evidence and the Claimant’s testimony, the Panel determines that the Claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Pakistan based on his imputed religious opinion.

[28]     The Panel, therefore, finds that the Claimant is a “Convention refugee” pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

[29]     The Panel, therefore, accepts his claim.

(signed)           Samantha Bretholz

December 7, 2020

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c, 27, as amended.
² Document 2-Basis of Claim Form (BOC). Document 4-Exhibit C-1: Update to the BOC of [XXX].
³ Document 1-Package of Information from  the referring Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)/Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): Passport.
⁴ Document 4-Exhibit C-3: TTP Letter.
⁵ Document 4-Exhibit C-4: TTP Fatwa.
⁶ Document 4-Exhibit C-6: Lawyer Letter.
⁷ Document 4-Exhibit C-7: Affidavit from [XXX].
⁸ Document 4-Exhibit C-8: Affidavit from [XXX].
⁹ Document 4-Exhibit C-5: Notice Public Gathering.
¹⁰ Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 1.13: DFAT Country Information Report: Pakistan, Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 February 2019.
¹¹ Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 1.8: UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, January 2017, HCR/EG/PAK/17/01.
¹² Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 1.13: DFAT Country Information Report: Pakistan, Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 February 2019.
¹³ Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 12.31: “As Good as Dead“: The Impact of the Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan, Amnesty International, 21 December 2016, ASA 33/5136/2016.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Supra, note 14.
¹⁶ Supra, note 14.
¹⁷ Supra, note 14.
¹⁸ Document 4-Exhibit C-11: Documents regarding Blaphesmy.
¹⁹ Document 4-Exhibit C-10: Documentary Evidence Taliban.
²⁰ Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 2.1: Pakistan. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019, United States, Department of State, 11 March 2020.
²¹ Ibid.
²² Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 1.17: Country Policy and Information Note. Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts. Version 3.0, United Kingdom, Home Office, September 2018.
²³ Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 1.6: Pakistan: Country Report, Asylum Research Centre, 18 June 2018.²⁴ Document 3-National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 31 March 2020, tab 12.4: Pakistan. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2019 Annual Report, United States, Commission on International Religious Freedom, April 2019.