Categories
All Countries Pakistan

2020 RLLR 84

Citation: 2020 RLLR 84
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 17, 2020
Panel: Jacqueline Gallant
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Birjinder P S Mangat
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: VB9-03745
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000157-000163

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision of the claim of [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA”).[1]

DETERMINATION

[2]       The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution on account of his political opinion for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimant fears the authorities in Pakistan as well as non-state pro-Pakistan groups due to his involvement in the United Kashmir People’s National Party (UKPNP).

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]       The panel finds that the claimant’s identity as a national of Pakistan is established by his testimony and the documentary evidence filed including his Pakistani passport.

Nexus

[5]       The panel finds there is a nexus between the claimant’s allegations and one of the five Refugee Convention grounds, namely political opinion, and has therefore assessed his claim under both s. 96 & 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Well-founded fear of persecution

[6]       In order to be considered a Convention Refugee the claimant must demonstrate that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution which includes both a subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear. Based on the claimant’s testimony, supporting documents and the country condition documents the panel finds that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons.

[7]       The panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness therefore believes what he has alleged. The claimant testified in straightforward and forthcoming manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before the panel. The claimant was able to spontaneously provided a detailed history of his involvement in the UKPMP both in his country and since coming to Canada. He was also able to provide detailed reasons as to why his involvement in this party is important to him and his values.

[8]       The panel finds that the claimant has established the following on a balance of probabilities:

  •      The claimant became involved in, PKNSF a student group that promoted Kashmiri independence in college and he received threats and beatings from pro-Pakistan groups because of this involvement;
  •      The claimant became an active member in the UKPNP in 2009 and he spoke to audiences and led protests in support of Kashmiri independence in Pakistan;
  •      During protests in 2009, 2013 and 2014 the claimant and others in his group were attacked with iron rods, sticks and stones by the police and workers of pro-Pakistan groups. The claimant was beaten on a number of occasions and on one occasion, the claimant was arrested and was held in solitary confinement, tortured, and threatened with death if he did not stop his political activities against Pakistan;
  •      The claimant reported the attacks on him to the security forces in Pakistan but was told that they would not help him;
  •      The claimant left Pakistan on [XXX] 2014 and spent a year working in Brazil. After being unable to extend his work visa in Brazil the claimant went to the US where he was detained and requested refugee protection with a hearing date set in [XXX] of 2021;
  •      On [XXX] 2019 the claimant came to Canada and made a claim for refugee protection;
  •      The claimant has remained an active member of the UKPNP since coming to Canada;
  •      If the claimant were to return to his country he would continue with his active involvement in political activities for the UKPNP party promoting Kashmiri independence in Pakistan;
  •      Individuals who promote Kashmiri independence in Pakistan are subject to illegal detention and punishment for their political opinion.

[9]       The claimant provided documentary evidence such as letters of support from members of the UKPNP, documentation confirming his membership in the UKPNP, and photos of him in attendance at various conferences, meetings and other events for the UKPNP both in Pakistan and in Canada. The claimant also provided various country condition evidence pertaining to the treatment of individuals who are similarly situated to the claimant to support his allegations. The panel finds that these documents are relevant and serve to corroborate his allegations and therefore places significant weight on them.

[10]     The panel finds that the claimant has established that he has a subjective fear of persecution by Pakistani authorities and other pro-Pakistan groups.

[11]     The country condition evidence, as outlined in the National Documentation Package at item 4.8[2] supports the claimant’s allegations as follows:

  • In Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan has been engaged in ongoing conflict with India and separatist insurgency groups since partition in 1947.
  • Pakistan generally forbids individuals or political parties from taking part in activities that are prejudicial to the government of Pakistan and this is particularly the case in Kashmir.
  • Anti-government demonstrations are routinely oppressed, often violently and Pakistani security forces generally view pro-independence groups with suspicion. The Pakistan Intelligence Agency engages in extensive surveillance of pro-independence groups and those who do not support the Pakistani government. These people are subject to surveillance, harassment, imprisonment and torture by security forces.
  • Pro-independence activists, including members of the UKPNP are often detained without being given a reason for their arrest. They are punished, interrogated and frequently tortured in detention.

[12]     Therefore, based on the totality of evidence the panel finds that the claimant has established that he would face a serious possibility of persecution in Pakistan because of his membership in the UKPNP and his political activism which he continues today.

State protection and Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[13]     Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states must be presumed capable of protecting its citizens. However, since the agent of persecution in this case is the state, the panel finds that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming and that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[14]     In this case, given that the state is the agent of harm, is in control of all of its territories and has demonstrated the capacity and motivation to harm the claimant in the past, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Pakistan. The panel therefore finds that there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[15]     The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution on account of his political opinion. The panel therefore accepts his claim.

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Pakistan, 29 March 2019, tab 4.8: Treatment by state and non-state agents of individuals and political factions that support or advocate for Kashmiri independence. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 November 2012. PAK103863.E.