2023 RLLR 207
Citation: 2023 RLLR 207
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 12, 2023
Panel: Devin Macdonald
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jeffrey Nadler
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: TC3-37100
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-37101
ATIP Number: A-2024-01010
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: The claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX who is the principal claimant, and XXXX XXXX, who is the associate claimant, allege that they are brothers and nationals of Pakistan.
[2] They are claiming protection in Canada, pursuant to sections 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] The claimants allege that they fear Tehrik-i-Taliban in Pakistan, because the principal claimant opposed a Taliban settlement in their village of XXXX, Kabal Swat, Pakistan, and refused their extortion demands.
[4] The claimants allege that they faced harassment and accusations of blasphemy, causing them to leave Pakistan.
[5] The Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[6] The Panel finds that the claimants fears stem from, first, the principal claimant’s outspoken opposition of the Taliban and their — the claimants’ perceived support of the West.
[7] Their fears have nexus with the Convention grounds of imputed political opinion, religion, and membership in a particular social group.
[8] The claimants have established their personal identities and their identities as nationals of Pakistan, on a balance of probabilities.
[9] Their passport identity pages can be found at Exhibit 1.
[10] And they provided secondary identification documents, including their work identity cards and family registration. And they testified consistently to their personal details. The personal documents can be found at Exhibit 5.
[11] The claimants have credibly established their material allegations of their claim, on a balance of probabilities.
[12] They provided cogent testimony, consistent with their allegations and the documentary evidence that they provided, including affidavits of — one from a friend, who alleges to have witnessed the principal claimant’s open opposition to the Taliban and receive — and the threats and harassment that both claimants faced from the Taliban. They’ve provided an affidavit from their father, who alleges that the Taliban has maintained an interest in locating the claimants since they have left Pakistan, and that the police are involved in locating the claimants.
[13] They have provided an affidavit from a family friend, with whom the associate claimant hid with before leaving the country. And in that affidavit, the family friend alleges to have seen a fatwa issued against the claimants in Islamabad. And the claimants provided a copy of that fatwa.
[14] The Panel has no reason to doubt the authenticity or the veracity of those documents, and gives them full weight in establishing the claimants’ allegations that they have been targeted by the Taliban.
[15] And moreover, through their testimony, the claimants did establish a political position oppositional to that of the Taliban. Wherein, they support secular education and religious tolerance.
[16] The Panel did question the claimants on how they obtained a police complaint against them, and they testified it was obtained by a family friend through unknown means. And because of the unknown provenance, the Panel does limit the weight on that document.
[17] However, based on the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that the claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that they have been targeted by the Pakistan Taliban, and that they fear return to Pakistan, due to their opposition of the Taliban and their perceived support of the West.
[18] There is considerable documentary evidence before the Panel that supports the claim that those accused of blasphemy face a significant risk of serious mistreatment in Pakistan. Religious extremism and intolerance are on the rise, according to the objective documents.
[19] Particularly, the Exhibit 3, Item 1.13. It indicates a record number of blasphemy cases were filed in 2020, and that public and online hate speech has increased. Multiple interlocutors told the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia that the government overlooked religious extremism to avoid antagonising powerful religious lobbies. The conviction rate for blasphemy in the lower courts is high, and judges are often under enormous public pressure to deliver a guilty verdict.
[20] A Pakistani legal expert has told the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia that most blasphemy convictions were overturned by higher courts, but an accused blasphemer is likely to spend years in prison even if the accusation is eventually found out to be baseless. Judges and defence lawyers are often reluctant to take on blasphemy cases due to the personal security risks involved, which results in appeals being delayed and until a new bench can be constituted. And accused blasphemers are at risk of extrajudicial killing, before, during, and after being taken into custody.
[21] More on the risk of societal violence. In December 2021, there was a Sri Lankan man who was beaten to death, and his corpse was set on fire in Pakistan after he was accused of blasphemy. And that was because he was removing posters from a wall of the factory in Punjab where he worked. And during the murder, his killers did chant slogans popularized by the Pakistani Taliban, which is the group that the claimants fear.
[22] The claimants established their allegations that they’ve been targeted by the Taliban as blasphemers.
[23] And this combined with the objective evidence on the treatment faced by those accused of blasphemy results in the Panel finding that the claimants’ fear of persecution in Pakistan is well-founded.
[24] The claimants have reliably established that state protection would not be forthcoming, should they return to Pakistan. The associate claimant sought the help of authorities and did not receive protection.
[25] They established that the police are pursuing the claimants, due to the accusation of blasphemy.
[26] And Item 12.3 of the Nation Documentation Package indicates that blasphemy is criminalised under
section 298 of the Pakistani Penal Code.
[27] Moreover, with regards to the risk faced from society and Taliban members, NDP 7.7 states that Pakistani security forces have struggled to muster capacity and will to confront domestic militants. And even though the army and police are — sorry. The army and the police are increasingly targeted by the militant groups themselves.
[28] So based on this information, the Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimants, should they return to Pakistan.
[29] The Panel did consider whether the claimants could viably relocate within Pakistan.
[30] And on the evidence before the Panel and the claimants’ profiles, the Panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.
[31] The Panel finds that the claimants do not have an internal flight alternative in Pakistan, due to the motivation, the ability of extremist groups to target them throughout the country.
[32] Tab 7.21, there is sources that report that extremist organization in Pakistan are related and have extensive reach and communication networks throughout the entire country.
[33] The claimants testified that they — sorry. The claimants testified that a family friend in Islamabad saw a fatwa with the claimants’ photos on it. And this establishes that the claimants are at — face a possibility of risk throughout the entire country.
[34] So based on the foregoing evidence, the Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, and accepts both of the claims.
[35] That concludes my reasons. The claims are accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———