Docket: IMM-24276-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1853
Ottawa, Ontario, November 20, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lafrenière
|
BETWEEN: |
|
RANA ZAMIR UL HASSAN KHAN |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Background
[1] The Applicant, Rana Zamir Ul Hassan Khan, seeks judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] of the decision rendered by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated November 28, 2024 [Decision], which confirmed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] dated August 21, 2024, that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
[2] For the reasons that follow, I find that the RAD’s Decision is reasonable. The application is accordingly dismissed.
II. Facts
[3] The Applicant is a Shia citizen of Pakistan, originally from the city of Sheikhupura, Punjab.
[4] In April 1992, the Applicant married his first cousin, whose father is Shia and mother is Ahmadi Muslim. The couple have three daughters, Rida Zainab, Nida Zainab [Nida] and Faiqa Zamir [Faiqa].
[5] The people from the village where they were cohabitating at the time opposed the marriage and the Applicant received threats to leave his wife or be ready to face dire consequences. The danger is said to have increased when a local cleric who belonged to the Sipha-e-Sahiba [SSP] began targeting the Applicant and his wife, accusing them of being Kafir and polluting the area. Eventually, the Applicant and his family fled the area and resettled in another town.
[6] The Applicant placed a Shia symbol, an Alam, on the family’s new home and would observe Shia holidays. According to the Applicant, he faced increasing problems over the next few decades with the ever-increasing influence of Islamic fundamentalism. He claims he was harassed with threatening phone calls, accused of being an “infidel,”
and threatened with death if he did not remove all Shia symbols from his home and convert to Sunnism. The Applicant eventually moved his family to Lahore.
[7] Because of her mother’s Ahmadi religion, Nida encountered difficulties with her marriage to Syed lbrar Hussain Rizvi. Her in-laws made her life miserable.
[8] The Applicant came to Canada on a visitor’s visa on October 3, 2019. He returned to Pakistan on December 4, 2019 upon learning that Nida and Faiqa had been drugged and raped by Nida’s brother-in-law, Syed lftikhar Hussain Rizvi [Syed Iftikhar].
[9] On December 8, 2019, the Applicant was attacked in his home by Syed Iftikhar and Syed Zawar Hussain Rizvi and two other armed men. Alerted by neighbours, the four men were arrested and taken to custody.
[10] Criminal proceedings ensued against Syed Iftikhar. The case was ongoing for several years. The Applicant claims that when he would appear in court, he would be threatened by Syed Iftikhar’s wife, a criminal lawyer [SR], who said that she had “connections”
and would have him killed. Due to the threats, the Applicant decided to leave the country.
[11] The Applicant came to Canada on his existing visa on November 23, 2022.
[12] In April 2023, the Applicant applied for refugee protection. In his Basis of Claim form, the Applicant alleged that he will be harmed by SR, who holds a grudge against him, and by members of the anti-Shia extremist groups in Pakistan SSP, Tehrik‐e Taliban Pakistan [TTP] and Ahl‐E‐ Hadees [AH] because he is a Shia Muslim.
III. Hearing before the RPD
[13] The Applicant’s claim was heard virtually by the RPD on July 16 and 24, 2024. The Applicant claimed he faced a risk in Pakistan because of his marriage to his wife, angering Ahmadi Muslims. The Applicant also claimed that he was targeted for persecution by members of the TTP and AH due to his high-profile as a Shia Muslim and a scholar and speaker in the Shia community. To support his claim, the Applicant testified that he “wrote a book.”
He then clarified that he helped the author of the book “to investigate and research about the book.”
[14] Later during the hearing, the Applicant shared a screen shot of the acknowledgements page of the book wherein the author wrote (interpreted from Urdu): “I am very thankful to Brother Rana Zamir and Brother Shabbir (phonetic), who are the friends of my husband.”
[15] The RPD member then sought further clarification from the Applicant:
MEMBER: And to clarify again, when you say you are a scholar, you mean because your name was referenced in that book. Am I correct?
CLAIMANT: All right. Yes, and because I am also the registered member of the biggest organization. They are Majlis Wahdat-e-Muslimeen, and they also sent me to recite or speak in the majlis.
[16] The Applicant also claimed that he was being persecuted by the SSP due to the ongoing criminal case being pursued against Syed Iftikhar, who the Applicant believes is connected to the SSP.
IV. The RPD’s Decision
[17] The RPD dismissed the Applicant’s claim on August 21, 2024 on the basis that his allegations were not credible. In rejecting the claim, the RPD made several key findings:
-
the Applicant did not establish that he has a profile that puts him at risk in Pakistan;
-
the Applicant's testimony that he was attacked by members of TTP and AH was speculative as there was no evidence to establish that people who attend Sunni mosques are de facto members of the TTP or AH;
-
the Applicant testified that he was able to continue practicing his religion and speaking at Shia places of worship until 2022 when he left Pakistan;
-
the book acknowledgement refers to “Zana Zamir”
and there is no evidence to indicate that the Applicant is known as “Zana Zamir”
;
-
there was no evidence that the Applicant was attacked because his name was allegedly mentioned in an acknowledgement in a book or because he is a popular Shia speaker in Pakistan;
-
there are significant Shia communities in Pakistan;
-
the state religion is Islam and Shia Muslims are freely permitted to practice their faith;
-
there was no evidence that an outspoken advocate for Shia rights, like the Applicant, may attract the attention of anti-Shia terrorist organizations and be targeted;
-
the Applicant lived safely in Islamabad for awhile and did not have any problems;
-
the Applicant did not establish that the criminal defense lawyer was after him because he is pursuing a court case against her husband or because a DNA test will be required by the authorities to finalize a pending decision;
-
the Applicant's testimony that the criminal lawyer is associated with terrorists is speculative and he did not establish that she is colluding with anti-Shia terrorist groups to kill him;
-
the Applicant did not establish that his children were attacked in 2023 and 2024 by anti-Shia extremists or the same culprits interested in him; and
-
the Applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in initiating his refugee claim, thereby indicating a lack of subjective fear and undermining his credibility.
V. The RAD’s Decision
[18] The Applicant appealed the RPD’s decision to the RAD.
[19] In support of his appeal, the Applicant sought to introduce “new”
evidence: a flyer for an event in Montreal on 25 August 2024, photographs of the Applicant in Montreal, seated at a microphone, a photograph of the Applicant in Pakistan, and three undated affidavits from individuals claiming the Applicant helped convert them to Shia Islam.
[20] The RAD did not admit the flyer or the photographs as new evidence since they did not establish the Applicant’s allegations that he is a well-known Shia leader in Pakistan and were therefore not relevant in regard to the RPD’s credibility findings. The RAD also determined that the other photograph and the affidavits could have been presented to the RPD and therefore were inadmissible on appeal.
[21] The RAD concluded that the RPD made an error when it found the Applicant’s delay in claiming refugee protection was not reasonably explained. It found that the Applicant had provided a credible explanation for why it took him four months to claim after he arrived in Canada. The RAD determined that since the Applicant had a Canadian visitor’s visa that was valid until November 2024, he was not facing a risk of being forced to leave Canada and that he had credibly established that he was experiencing symptoms of mental health problems.
[22] The RAD further concluded that the RPD made a mistake when it found the book acknowledgement the Applicant presented referred to a “Zana Zamir,”
when the book clearly refers to “Rana Zamir.”
While the RAD accepted that the Applicant may be known by some people as “Rana Zamir,”
it found that he had not established that he was widely known as Rana Zamir. The RAD further found that the Applicant had provided no credible evidence that he has been persecuted because the name Rana Zamir appeared in a book published in 2014.
[23] The RAD went on to conclude that, beyond being an active Shia Muslim and occasionally speaking at Shia gatherings, the Applicant had not credibly established that he was a high-profile member of the Shia community, or that the SSP wanted to persecute him at the urging of SR or because he was a Shia leader, or that he was persecuted by anti-Shia groups.
[24] The RAD found that the Applicant’s ability to continue practicing his religion and participating in religious events until his departure from Pakistan undermined his claim of a forward-looking risk of persecution.
[25] The RAD found that the Applicant had not credibly established a risk of harm from any source, whether on the basis of his religious profile or as a result of his involvement in the criminal proceedings against SR’s husband.
VI. Issues and Standard of Review
[26] The Applicant raises three issues on judicial review.
-
Whether the RAD erred in law by refusing to admit the Applicant’s new evidence?
-
Whether the RAD erred in law by making adverse findings of fact and credibility on an arbitrary and capricious basis and without regard to the claim and evidence before it?
-
Whether the RAD erred in law by failing to conduct a separate analysis of the Applicant’s claim under section 97 of the IRPA?
[27] The parties submit and I agree that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. A reasonable decision is one based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 85). The burden is on the Applicant to satisfy the Court “that any shortcomings or flaws relied on (…) are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable.”
(Vavilov at para 100.) A reasonable decision is justified in light of the facts and “the reasonableness of a decision may be jeopardized where the decision maker has fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it.”
(Vavilov at para 126)
VII. Analysis
A. Whether the RAD erred in law by refusing to admit the Applicant’s new evidence?
[28] The Applicant submits that the RAD erred in refusing to admit new evidence on appeal. The Applicant maintains that the evidence met the legal test for “newness”
as required by subsection 110(4) of the IRPA because it contradicts a finding of fact/credibility made by the RPD—namely, that the Applicant was not a high-profile Shia scholar, active and known in the Shia community in Pakistan and beyond. According to the Applicant, he could not have reasonably anticipated that the RPD would doubt his Shia profile. For the reason set out below, I conclude that there is no merit to these arguments.
[29] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA restricts the admission of new evidence on appeal to evidence that arose after the RPD decision, was not reasonably available at the time or could not reasonably have been expected to be presented.
[30] The RAD correctly noted that the evidence must not only be new, but also credible, relevant and material: see Raza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 at para 13.
[31] The RAD found that the photographs and flyers from events in Montreal in 2024, while post-dating the RPD decision, were not relevant to the RPD’s credibility findings regarding the Applicant’s profile in Pakistan. The RAD concluded that these materials only demonstrated the Applicant’s participation in religious events in Canada and did not establish that he was a high-profile Shia leader in Pakistan, which was the central issue before the RPD. The Applicant submits that this conclusion is unintelligible and perverse. According to the Applicant, the fact that the photos and flyer depict a person “speaking at a microphone at a mosque”
goes a long way towards establishing that he is a “Shia orator.”
With respect, the Applicant’s argument is simply a disagreement with the RAD’s conclusion. The Applicant is essentially inviting the Court to review, reweigh and reassess the evidence, which is not the Court’s role. In my view, it was reasonably open to the RAD to conclude as it did.
[32] The RAD also found that the photograph from Pakistan and the affidavits from individuals claiming conversion to Shia Islam were not “new”
within the meaning of subsection 110(4), as they related to events predating the RPD decision and could have been submitted earlier. The Applicant submits that the RAD failed to provide any coherent and intelligible rationale for not admitting this evidence. I disagree. In fact, I consider its finding to be eminently reasonable. As properly noted by the RAD, the Applicant was represented by experienced counsel, was aware that credibility was at issue, and had ample opportunity to submit this evidence before the RPD rendered its decision.
[33] The RAD’s approach is consistent with the principle that an appeal to the RAD is not an opportunity to bolster a case by submitting evidence that could have been presented at the first instance. The Applicant’s assertion that he was surprised by the RPD’s credibility findings does not excuse his failure to submit relevant evidence in a timely manner, particularly given the clear indication at the outset of the RPD hearing that credibility was in issue.
[34] Claimants must put their best foot forward before the RPD and present all the evidence available to them at that time (Abdullahi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260 at para 14). It is not open to claimants to present themselves before the RAD to “tune-up”
their case. Indeed, the “failure on the part of an applicant to anticipate an adverse finding by the RPD is not a valid basis for bringing new evidence before the RAD (…) nor is the fact the new evidence may contradict a finding by the RPD”
(Majdisorkhabi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1284 at para 29, citing Digaf v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1255 at para 26, and Arafa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 6 at para 43).
[35] The RAD provided clear and intelligible reasons for refusing to admit the Applicant’s evidence. I see no basis for interfering with its findings.
B. Whether the RAD erred in law by making adverse findings of fact and credibility on an arbitrary and capricious basis and without regard to the claim and evidence before it?
[36] The Applicant primarily criticizes the RAD’s finding that he had not credibly established that he was a high-profile member of the Shia community, as opposed to an ordinary Shia. The Applicant submits that the RAD’s credibility determinations were unreasonable and not founded in logic, evidence or an accurate understanding of the Applicant’s claim. With respect, the Applicant is mischaracterizing the RAD’s analysis and finding by focussing on minor, peripheral issues not relevant to the crux of his claim. As explained below, I am satisfied that the RAD’s findings are grounded in the evidence and are reasonable in light of the record before it.
[37] The Applicant submits that the RAD failed to accept that he had been mentioned in a book acknowledgment by a Shia author. That is not the case. The RAD did not opine on the identity of the person being acknowledged. It instead specifically addressed the Applicant’s reliance on the book acknowledgment, finding that while the Applicant may be known as “Rana Zamir,”
there was no credible evidence that he was widely known by this name or that he was targeted as a result of the book’s publication.
[38] The Applicant argues that he never claimed to have been persecuted because the name Rana Zamir appeared in a book. While that may be, the Applicant himself pointed to the acknowledgment in the book as proof that he had a high profile. In the circumstances, it was open to the RAD to question how the Applicant’s profile as a Shia scholar became publicly known by an obscure reference in an acknowledgment in a book published years earlier.
[39] The RAD found that there was no evidence in the National Documentation Package to support the Applicant’s claim that individuals with his profile are specifically targeted. It acknowledged that while extremist groups such as the TTP and SSP have targeted Shias in the past, the majority of their attacks are directed at state institutions, security forces, and large gatherings, rather than individual Shias or religious leaders. The RAD further noted that while Shias in Pakistan may face discrimination and occasional violence, the majority are able to practice their religion freely, and there is no evidence that individuals with the Applicant’s profile are targeted by extremist groups. While the Applicant may disagree with these findings, they are amply supported by objective country evidence.
[40] The RAD found that the Applicant’s testimony regarding attacks and threats by anti-Shia extremist groups, including SSP, was speculative and unsupported by corroborating evidence. Moreover, it specifically addressed the Applicant’s allegations regarding SR, finding that the Applicant’s testimony was speculative and that there was insufficient credible evidence to establish a connection between SR and extremist groups or to support the claim that SR was orchestrating attacks against the Applicant. In my view, these findings were reasonably open to the RAD based on the totality of the record.
[41] The Applicant is in essence asking this Court to reweigh the evidence. Once again, that is not this Court’s role on judicial review. The shortcomings in the Applicant’s evidence and credibility are all transparently and intelligibly detailed in the RAD’s comprehensive reasons and are fully justified.
C. Whether the RAD erred in law by failing to conduct a separate analysis of the Applicant’s claim under section 97 of the IRPA?
[42] The Applicant submits the RAD’s decision is unreasonable because it did not undertake an analysis under subsection 97(1) the IRPA. While it is true that there is no mention of section 97 in the Decision, nor section 96 for that matter, the failure to proceed to a separate section 97 analysis is not fatal in this case.
[43] A general finding that an applicant lacks credibility is sufficient to justify the rejection of a claim for refugee protection under both sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA, unless there is independent and credible documentary evidence in the record to support a decision in favour of the Applicant: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Sellan, 2008 FCA 381 at para 3.
[44] The RAD found that the Applicant had not credibly established a risk of harm from any source, whether on the basis of his religious profile or as a result of his involvement in the criminal proceedings against SR’s husband. The RAD’s findings address the substance of the section 97 claim, and the Applicant has not demonstrated that a separate or more detailed analysis was required in the circumstances.
[45] The RAD specifically found that the Applicant was “not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.”
Its omission to cite sections 96 and 97, while unfortunate, does not cause me to lose confidence in the Decision (Abramowitz v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 205 at para 17).
VIII. Conclusion
[46] The Applicant has not shown that the intervention of this Court is warranted. The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
[47] The parties have not proposed any questions for certification.
Email this Content