2023 RLLR 209

Citation: 2023 RLLR 209
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 20, 2023
Panel: Tiara Stiglich
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ali A Naqvi
Country: Pakistan
RPD Number: VC2-09346
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01010
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons of the Refugee Protection Division of the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, the claimant, who 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. In these reasons, I have taken into consideration and I have applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4, which is the Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board. 

[2] First, I will discuss a procedural issue. At the start of the hearing, I confirmed that the interpreter, who was present, spoke Punjabi, however, he spoke Punjabi from India, and the claimant spoke Punjabi from Pakistan. The interpreter confirmed that it was the same language, but there could possibly be some differences in words or phrases used. He confirmed that he was confident that he was able to proceed. I confirmed with the claimant that she could understand him, and I also informed her that if there was a problem with any kind of interpretation that she should please let me know, and I also forwarded the same courtesy to Counsel and to the interpreter. 

[3] Approximately 10 minutes into the claimant providing her testimony, Counsel did interject stating that he had some concerns with the interpretation. The concern was that the interpreter was not properly interpreting what I, the Member, was asking. Counsel stated he felt that the interpreter was not interpreting all the words or was even changing some of the words, which ultimately changed what the question actually was that was being asked. I confirmed with the interpreter what he was actually interpreting, and he confirmed through an example that was provided by Counsel in a question that had been asked and changed, that he did, in fact, change that question that was asked. He used different words and he left certain words out. I corrected the interpreter, and I told him that that is not what I had asked, and I confirmed with him that he was to only interpret what I was asking and not to change or alter any words. He confirmed he would do that moving forward, and all parties confirmed that they were confident to proceed. 

[4] However, approximately five (5) to 10 minutes later, Counsel, again, interjected and raised the same concerns that he had previously. While I was speaking with Counsel, we confirmed that ultimately what was being asked was causing confusion with the claimant in being able to answer and provide her testimony or her responses. To this, I noticed that the claimant nodded her head. So, I asked her through the interpreter, if she understood what was being said and if she agreed, and she ultimately said yes, that she did agree that there was confusion. So, because of this, and also, it was quite clear during the hearing that the claimant’s demeanor and her responses, and there was a lot of confusion that was going on. So, I was not confident to proceed with that interpreter. So, we did change interpretation.

[5] A new interpreter joined us, this time in Urdu, which the claimant is also fluent and proficient in, and said she was comfortable with. We redid her affirmation with the new interpreter, and I reconfirmed her Basis of Claim form, and then I started my questions again. All parties agreed with this and felt it was the most fair with the claimant. There were no further issues moving forward with interpretation. 

[6] So, now to the allegations. The claimant’s allegations are set out in full in her Basis of Claim form and throughout her testimony. The Basis of Claim form is found at Exhibit 2. This is only going to be a brief summary. 

[7] The claimant fears her husband in Pakistan due to the abuse and violence she suffered at his hands during their marriage and that he has also alleged that she has brought dishonour to him and has threatened to kill her. The claimant married her husband first, which is her second husband, in 2018. In about XXXX or early XXXX 2021, some men from a religious organization known as Tehreek-e-Labbaik, whom her husband is very close with, came to their door to speak with her husband. He was not home. She was not comfortable to be in the home with them alone, so she asked them to wait outside. When her husband came home, he was furious at her for making them wait outside. This is when the relationship changed, and he became very violent and abusive. He also became sexually abusive with her as well. He would not allow her to leave the home and he threatened to kill her if she escaped. 

[8] She managed to get her brother to help her leave. She then stayed with one (1) of her brother’s friends, XXXX XXXX (ph) in his farmhouse, and he let her hide there. She was getting threatening phone calls from her husband and his friends at the Tehreek-e-Labbaik. They were all saying that they would find her, they would rape her, and they would kill her. Within a few days of her being at the farm, while she was at a petrol station with XXXX, four (4) men tried to kidnap her and told her that now they had found her, she would never get away and that they would kill her. Other people at the station came to her aid and the men ran off. The claimant fled to Canada only a few short days later and she claimed refugee protection. 

[9] My determination is that I find the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Act. The claimant has a nexus to the Convention ground of a particular social group, namely women, and namely women fearing gender-based persecution. In regards to the claimant’s identity, I find that her as a national of Pakistan is established on the balance of probabilities by a copy of her Pakistan passport, which is found at Exhibit 1. 

[10] Regarding credibility, when a claimant swears to the truth of allegations, that creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. This does not apply to inferences or to speculation. The claimant testified in a clear, consistent, and detailed manner to her circumstances and the potential risk that she alleges would continue for her if she returned to Pakistan. She appeared to be very genuine and explained for me the differences between men and women in Pakistan and how women are not afforded the same rights as men. She spoke to me about her first marriage and how she was forced into it as she did not want it. She told her family she did not want to be married, but ultimately, that did not matter and she was forced. She told me that this is just the way it works for women in Pakistan. 

[11] When she was married, she was not allowed to work as she said it was her duty as a woman to take care of the house and to take care of the children. She was not able to work or have any money for herself so, when her first husband divorced her, she could not take care of her children. She explained that a woman is not allowed to initiate divorce, only a male is allowed to do that. And as a divorced woman, she said she is an outcast in society, and everyone feels that she is not worthy. That is the reason why she ultimately got married a second time, because as a single woman in Pakistan, she said you cannot take care of yourself, and it causes so much hatred and difficulty in society. She said that she has to live with a man and be with a man in order to be safe there. So, that is why she agreed to marry the second husband, despite the fact that he was already married, which she also said would never be allowed for her, that is only something that is allowed for men. She told me that her husband has friends to kill her through her family and that he will find her, as she dishonoured him. He has also begun to spread vicious rumours about her, that she is the one (1) that left him, she had multiple affairs, and that she is a woman of bad character. 

[12] The claimant provided in evidence several documents to support her claim. She provided a copy of the Pakistan pass — or ID card, sorry, which does confirm her husband’s name. She also provided her marriage certificate, her current husband, her marriage and her divorce certificate from her previous husband as well, confirming her relationships. She also provided an affidavit from her brother who confirmed her marriages, who confirms that she was forced into the marriages, and that she also — he also confirmed that the first marriage broke down because her first husband demanded she sign over her family’s property to him and when she refused, he divorced her. He also confirmed that her second husband, who is her current husband, was abusive to her and he helped her flee and helped her stay at his friend’s farmhouse. 

[13] Further, he confirmed that he went to the police with her to report her second husband, but the police told them to leave because this was a family matter that she needed to resolve by herself. She also provided a letter from a lawyer who also tried to help her file a complaint, who confirms that the police refused to help. And she provided an affidavit from XXXX, which confirms that she did stay with him at his home for an approximate week, and ultimately, she had to leave because some men tried to abduct her from the petrol station. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these letters, and I find that they corroborate the claimant’s allegations. I place high weight on them. I find the claimant to be credible and I believe her allegations. 

[14] The country condition evidence, which is found at the National Documentation Package or NDP for Pakistan, support her allegations. Based on her testimony, the supporting documents, and the country condition documents, which I will briefly over now, I find that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution if she were to return to Pakistan. At NDP 5.21, that states that women in Pakistan face direct, cultural, and structural violence through a deeply entranced system of patriarchy in all aspects of public and private life. NDP 5.5 states that Pakistan has been ranked as the sixth most dangerous country in the world for women, and that rates of violence against women are increasing. NDP 1.13, the World Economic Forum states that they ranked Pakistan 148 out of 149 countries regarding health and survival for women. 

[15] The United States Department of State report at NDP 2.1 says that violence against women is the most significant — one (1) of the most significant human rights issues in Pakistan. It is widespread and it includes family violence, which spreads to the marital family as well. Women who tried to report of this abuse, they face serious challenges because authorities are reluctant to take action in these cases as they view them as family problems and that is NDP 2.1 as well. Further, NDP 5.5 talks about honour killings. And this is the murder of men or women who are accused of breaking social taboos, and that NDP states that this practice is common in Pakistan and that most of these incidents go unreported. There are approximately 1,000 honour killings every year in Pakistan. These are committed primarily against women who are thought to be engaging in pre-martial relations or because she demands to marry the man of her choice or simply because someone in her family, typically a male member, feels that she dishonoured them. 

[16] This NDP goes on to say that women are the carriers of honour in the entire family, and that honour is something that is deeply rooted in social, political, and economic fabric of the country. And so, when a man claims that a woman has brought dishonour to the family, that woman has the — or that man, I apologize, the man has the right to then kill that woman in order to restore the honour of the family. Police largely treat honour killings as private family affairs, and there is the Criminal Law Act, which is in 2004, that does describe punishment for honour crimes, but this is clear when it states an enforcement of this law is inadequate and the implications of the policies is very limited. Murderers are given protection and impunity from the community, which extends to police courts and other agents. Based on everything that I have already stated regarding her testimony, her evidence, and the objective country condition reports, about how women just generally in Pakistan are treated, I find that women — that the claimant as a woman, faces is a serious possibility of persecution from her husband, but also just from general society due to her gender, and also due to the fact that she is a divorced woman. 

[17] I have considered whether adequate state protection is available to the claimant in Pakistan, and I have concluded that it is not. While there is a presumption of state protection, in this case that presumption has been rebutted with clear and convincing evidence that protection would not be forthcoming. The claimant actually tried to get help from the police and they turned her away, saying that this was a private matter, and that she had to resolve this with her husband. They said that a husband can do whatever he wants to his wife. Domestic violence crimes are mostly unreported in Pakistan, and they are still seen as private family matters, and they are seen as matters of shame or dishonour. Given these issues of family and honour, I find that the claimant would not — or similarly would not receive police or judicial intervention, therefore, the presumption has been rebutted. 

[18] I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant, and based on all the objective country documentation already stated, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility persecution based on her gender alone throughout the entire country of Pakistan. And accordingly, I find that there is no internal flight available that is available to her. 

[19] Based on everything I have already stated, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and I have accepted her claim. And those are the end of the reasons. 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———