2023 RLLR 195
Citation: 2023 RLLR 195
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 15, 2023
Panel: Andrew Montague
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Marek Balinski
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: TC3-10235
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01010
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is a decision in the refugee claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX-XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The file number for the Claimant is TC3-10235.
[2] The Claimant alleged to be a citizen of Pakistan is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered her testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally.
[3] The Claimant’s allegations are provided in detail in her Basis of Claim form contained in Exhibit 2. In summary, the Claimant alleges she cannot return to Pakistan as she faces persecution at the hands of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, LEJ, which is spelled L-A-S-H-K-A-R hyphen E hyphen J-H-A-N-G-V-I. According to her narrative, the Claimant is a Shia Muslim and a Zakira Z-A-K-I-R-A, which is a female who is deemed qualified to speak about Shia Islam as a Zakira.
[4] The Claimant routinely delivered religious sermons to her fellow Muslims. The Claimant testified that she was determined to diminish the hatred between Shia and Sunni sects and as such, she gradually began to meet with local Sunni women and spoke to them about Shia Islam. The Claimant spoke about the Shia-Sunni alliance and hoped that the misunderstandings and misconceptions between the two sects could be dispelled through dialogue.
[5] The Claimant also raised money for the poor and opened a food bank to serve people in the area. The Claimant testified that she was having great success in spreading the word of Shia Islam and that many Sunni admitted to her that they had come to realize they had unwarranted prejudices towards Shia Muslims. In XXXX of 2021, the Claimant received a threatening phone call from the LEJ saying that they had taken notice of her activities propagating the Shia faith.
[6] On XXXX XXXX, 2021, she was assaulted by LEJ, who called her a kafir and once again made note of her activities spreading the Shia faith. The Claimant was warned that she would be killed if she did not stop these activities. The Claimant went to the police, however they were reluctant to provide any support and largely dismissed her concerns. Afraid for his life, the Claimant’s husband abandoned her and the children and fled to Islamabad.
[7] Also fearful, the Claimant relocated elsewhere in Pakistan. However, on XXXX XXXX, 2021, a friend of hers informed the Claimant that the LEJ had dropped off a letter at her home. The letter contained a fatwa stating that the LEJ found her and would kidnap her, her husband, her children and toss them, their chopped up bodies, to the ducks. The Claimant informed her husband, who subsequently divorced her.
[8] On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the Claimant’s friend informed her that men who were allegedly from the LEJ vandalized her property while discharging their weapons in the air. Later that same day, she received a threatening phone call that accused her of spreading the poisonous Shia faith.
[9] Once again, the Claimant sought protection, but the police refused to provide any assistance. The LEJ continued to search for the Claimant and began harassing the Claimant’s family and friends in their attempts to locate her.
[10] The Claimant was subsequently able to flee to the United States before claiming refugee status in Canada. The Claimant alleges that there is no state protection or an internal flight alternative available for her in Pakistan. I find the Claimant is a person in need of protection for the following reasons. I find that the Claimant is a convention refugee as she would face a serious possibility of persecution if she were to return to Pakistan for reasons of her religious beliefs.
[11] The Claimant has established her personal and national identity on a balance of probabilities through her Pakistani passport. When a Claimant swears to tell the truth of their allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt the truthfulness. In this case, I find no substantial reason to doubt the truthfulness of the Claimant. The Claimant testified in a relatively straightforward and convincing manner and was able to answer most of the questions that were asked.
[12] I find that the Claimant did not exaggerate her testimony even when it may have been beneficial to do so. There were no material inconsistencies between the Claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence before me. I found that the Claimant was a credible witness on the whole and therefore I believe what she has alleged in support of her claim. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the documentary evidence that the Claimant disclosed and find the evidence supports and corroborates her allegations.
[13] For example, the Claimant disclosed letters of support from her friends and family who attested to and corroborated the Claimant’s allegations. The Claimant also provided documentation to corroborate her divorce, her attempt to gain police protection, her work promoting Shia Islam in Pakistan, as well as the fatwa from the LHA. As to the Claimant’s failure to claim in the United States, the Claimant was asked to explain this issue during the hearing. The Claimant stated that she fled to the United States but intended to make her claim for refugee status in Canada.
[14] I note that the United States is recognized internationally as a safe location for Refugee Claimants and neither the Claimant nor Counsel submitted any documentary evidence to suggest otherwise. I find the Claimant’s failure to claim in the United States harms the overall credibility of our allegations. However, this issue is not determinative and therefore it does not fail to the claim as I find the Claimant’s failure to claim asylum in the United States would not be a mitigating factor in the motivation of the agents of harm to locate the Claimant should she return to Pakistan.
[15] In terms of state protection, the Claimant attempted to seek it on several occasions, but it was denied to her. I note that her experience with the police is supported by the objective evidence, which demonstrates that adequate state protection would not be available to the Claimant in Pakistan. At Item 1.14 of the NDP for Pakistan, it says generally that corruption is widespread and systemic in Pakistan. Item 1.8 of the NDP states that extremist groups can act with impunity. Shiite are reportedly the main target for sectarian attacks. The number of blasphemy allegations made against Shiites has also reportedly increased exponentially during the period from 2012 to 2015.
[16] Militant groups reportedly view the Shiites as heretics, infidels, and apostates, who should be punished with death. Shiites are reported to be subject to violent sectarian attacks such as militant groups which are reportedly able to act with impunity. At item 7.12 of the NDP, I note that when someone is threatened by a Sunni extremist group, asking for protection from police is not effective because the police lack resources. This report also contains information about the court processes for prosecuting terrorism and how ineffective they are due to a severe backlog of cases and high dismissal rates allowing terrorists to slip through the cracks.
[17] At Item 7.21, it says that the LEJ and SSP have the support of the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI and that sometimes they have protection of the police. And even when there are situations of the police arresting local militants, they will release them when ordered to do so by ISI or other intelligence services. In light of the documentary evidence, I find there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection in Pakistan is inadequate for the Claimant in those circumstances and find that the Claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.
[18] In determining whether the Claimant could live safely in other parts of Pakistan, the Panel has considered if the LEJ would have the motivation and capacity to pursue the Claimant if they relocate elsewhere in Pakistan. Item 1.8 indicates that militant groups such as the LEJ have a wide geographic reach while Item 4.9 says that the LEJ is known to have a countrywide network. For the reasons above, I find that LEJ would pursue and harm the Claimant on a balance of probabilities throughout the entirety of the country. For these reasons, I find there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative for the Claimant.
[19] After careful consideration of all the evidence including documentary evidence filed by the Claimant, oral testimony, objective evidence, and the National Documentation Package, and submissions by Counsel, I find that the Claimant has satisfied her burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that she is a convention refugee on the grounds of her religious beliefs. Accordingly, her claim is accepted.
[20] So Madam Interpreter, are you there?
[21] INTERPRETER: Yeah, I am here, but somehow my camera is not working.
[22] MEMBER: Okay, that’s fine. I just wasn’t sure if you’re still there. So, that is all for today.
[23] CLAIMANT: I want to say something.
[24] MEMBER: Yes, of course.
[25] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much for my Counsel, dear Board Member and the Interpreter, and long live the King and Canada. Thank you so much. Happy Christmas.
[26] MEMBER: Thank you. Thank you for your time, Counsel, today.
[27] COUNSEL: Thank you Mr. Board Member.
[28] MEMBER: Madam Interpreter, thank you very much for your assistance. It was most appreciated.
[29] INTERPRETER: Thank you so much for having me.
[30] MEMBER: And finally, I’d like to thank the Claimant for sharing her story today. Welcome to Canada.
[31] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much. Happy Christmas.
[32] MEMBER: Happy Christmas. This hearing is now concluded.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———