Docket: IMM-21079-24
Citation: 2026 FC 104
Ottawa, Ontario, January 23, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR |
|
SHAGUFTA ZUBAIR |
|
HAIQA ZUBAIR |
|
MUHAMMAD HUZAIFA BHUTTA |
|
MUHAMMAD AHMAD |
|
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicants are a family of Pakistani nationals. They are the Principal Applicant, Mr. Muhammad Zubair, his spouse, Ms. Shagufta Zubair, and their four children: Haiqa Zubair, Muhammad Ahmad, Muhammad Huzaifa Bhutta, and Muhammad Abdullah.
[2] They ask the Court to set aside a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] affirming a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] refusing their claim for refugee protection on the basis that the Applicants were neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, RSC 2001, c 27.
[3] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.
The Applicants’ Basis of Claim
[4] In early 2020, the Applicants converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. They state that this conversion attracted negative attention from extremist Sunni elements in Pakistan, including members of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi [LEJ], and that their family became the target of escalating threats and acts of violence. In their Basis of Claim, the Applicants describe six separate incidents allegedly perpetrated by individuals they characterize as anti-Shia extremists.
[5] The first incident is said to have occurred on May 20, 2020, following a Shia Majlis religious gathering held at the family residence. The Applicants state that four armed individuals who identified themselves as members of LEJ confronted the Principal Applicant, demanded that he renounce his conversion, and threatened consequences if he continued to practise as a Shia Muslim. The matter was reported to police, who, according to the Applicants, registered the complaint against unknown persons and declined to identify the LEJ. The Principal Applicant returned to Italy shortly thereafter, where he had been working since 2011.
[6] The second incident allegedly took place in October 2020, while the Principal Applicant remained in Italy for work. The Applicants state that Ms. Zubair was stopped near the family residence by three armed extremists, who accused the family of betraying the Sunni faith and threatened to kill them. When she sought police assistance, Ms. Zubair was informed that the matter was religious in nature, and no action would be taken. Fearing for their safety, the family relocated to the city of Lahore.
[7] A third incident allegedly occurred in March 2021, after the family continued attending Shia religious gatherings in Lahore. The Applicants state that, while returning from Imam Bargah Karbala Gamay Shah, a religious gathering, Ms. Zubair and their children were accosted by four armed individuals who again identified themselves as members of LEJ. Ms. Zubair was pushed and threatened for disregarding earlier warnings, and the assailants left only after bystanders intervened. The Applicants allege that the Lower Mall Police Station refused to register a report without payment of a bribe and made derogatory remarks about Shia Muslims. A petition for police protection was subsequently filed by the Applicants in the Lahore Sessions Court.
[8] A fourth incident allegedly occurred in November 2021, after the family had already left Pakistan to join the Principal Applicant in Italy. The Applicants allege that five armed individuals attended the Principal Applicant’s parental home in Pakistan, identified themselves as LEJ and forcibly entered the residence. While inside the home, the intruders damaged property, assaulted the Principal Applicant’s brother, and threatened to kill the Principal Applicant if he returned to Pakistan.
[9] The fifth incident is said to have occurred in October 2022, when five armed individuals attended the residence of the spouse’s family in Gujranwala, accused the family of apostasy, and issued death threats should they return. The Applicants further state that, earlier in January 2022, officers from the Lower Mall Police Station attended the residence of a family friend seeking their whereabouts and advised that no police protection would be provided due to the petition previously filed against them in the Lahore Sessions Court.
[10] A sixth incident is alleged to have occurred in July 2023, after the Principal Applicant returned to Pakistan to visit his hospitalized sister. The Principal Applicant states that, while returning from the hospital, he was attacked by four armed individuals, beaten, called a non-believer, and accused of misleading Sunnis through his adherence to Shia Islam. Local residents allegedly intervened. A report was filed with the Sadar Police Station, but again no action followed. The Principal Applicant returned to Italy shortly thereafter.
[11] Following his return to Italy, the Principal Applicant states that he lost his employment due to downsizing and was subsequently advised that his immigration status could not be renewed. The Applicants maintain that they face a continuing risk to their lives in Pakistan and therefore could not return. As a result, the Applicants decided to travel to Canada on July 28, 2023, where they claimed refugee protection upon arrival.
The RPD Decision
[12] The RPD made four negative credibility findings, which it determined were sufficient to rebut the presumption of truthfulness afforded to the Applicants and deny their claims for refugee protection.
[13] First, the RPD found that the Applicants had not credibly established that they were attacked by anti-Shia extremists. The panel noted inconsistencies in the Principal Applicant’s account of how the alleged incidents ended. While his written narrative repeatedly asserted that “locals”
or “bystanders”
intervened, his oral testimony, when probed, was vague and unparticularized, including generalized statements such as, “when people attack you, people come to help you.”
The RPD characterized the evidence as “evasive, vague and confusing.”
[14] Second, the RPD found that the Applicants had not established a forward-looking risk on the basis of their conversion to Shia Islam. It relied on objective country evidence indicating that Shias constitute a sizeable and openly practising community in Pakistan. The RPD observed that the Applicants did not demonstrate any particular prominence, public profile, or leadership role that would render them especially vulnerable to extremist targeting.
[15] Third, the RPD found that the Principal Applicant’s return to Pakistan in June 2023 undermined his alleged subjective fear. It was not persuaded by his explanation that his return was necessary to assist his sister, who had been hospitalized due to a serious leg injury complicated by diabetes and hypertension. The panel also noted an inconsistency in his testimony regarding his living arrangements during that visit.
[16] Fourth, the RPD determined that the Applicants’ failure to seek asylum in Italy further weakened their claim. The Principal Applicant had resided in that country with legal status since 2011, yet offered no persuasive reason for not seeking protection there. The RPD rejected his assertion that he was ineligible to claim asylum while holding a work visa, noting that Italian policy, as reflected in the NDP, confirms that there is no temporal bar preventing an individual already present in Italy from making an asylum application.
[17] In light of these credibility findings, the RPD concluded that the Applicants had not met their evidentiary burden required for their refugee protection claim.
The RAD Decision
[18] The RAD addressed each of the RPD’s credibility findings and affirmed the RPD’s conclusion that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the Act.
[19] First, the RAD upheld the RPD’s finding that the Applicants had not credibly established that they were attacked by anti-Shia extremists. It emphasized that the Principal Applicant’s testimony shifted during questioning, particularly with respect to the alleged repeated intervention of bystanders who prevented armed extremists from harming him or his family. The RAD noted the absence of a clear and consistent explanation as to how members of LEJ, described as armed extremists with significant reach, were repeatedly thwarted without consequence. It agreed with the RPD that the testimony was vague, implausible, and insufficient to establish the incidents on a balance of probabilities. In this regard, the RAD stated:
I find that the Appellants have not credibly established that they were attacked by anti-Shia extremists. The PA testified that each time he or his family was attacked, it was in the daytime and other people were always present. When the RPD Member asked the PA initially about the first time he was attacked, the PA did not mention that other people had come to help him. When he was asked to clarify why he did not mention that other people intervened, the PA responded that “it is a natural thing in Pakistan whenever there’s someone attack or the person the people come to rescue”. In reference to other attacks, the PA was asked to clarify how, if the attackers were armed as he alleged, other people saved them from being harmed. The PA responded that the weapons were hidden, and other people could not see the arms and that when “the people came for to (sic) save they ran away”.
[20] Second, the RAD upheld the RPD’s assessment that the Principal Applicant’s reavailment to Pakistan in June 2023 undermined his subjective fear. While it acknowledged a misstatement by the RPD concerning whether he stayed within Gujranwala or slightly outside it, the RAD found his explanations internally contradictory, noting that his testimony about accommodation “in our area”
later shifted to a claim that he stayed outside the city. The RAD also found his assertion that LEJ located him through biometric data provided for a SIM card to be speculative and unsupported by objective evidence. The RAD found it unreasonable that someone with a genuine fear of persecution would voluntarily return to the same region where he claimed extremists had previously targeted his family.
[21] Third, the RAD upheld the RPD’s conclusion that the Applicants’ failure to seek asylum in Italy undermined their credibility. It did not accept the Principal Applicant’s assertion that he was unaware of the possibility of seeking protection in that country. The RAD found it reasonable to expect that individuals who claimed to be at risk since 2020, and who resided in Italy with temporary legal status, would have sought available protection there rather than waiting until they were able to secure visas for Canada.
[22] Fourth, on forward-facing risk, the RAD agreed with the RPD that the objective evidence on the treatment of Shia Muslims in Pakistan is mixed but does not indicate that ordinary Shia Muslims are generally exposed to a serious possibility of persecution. While acknowledging the existence of extremist groups such as LEJ, the RAD noted that Shias constitute a significant minority with social and political representation and may generally practice their faith openly. It found that elevated risks are associated with particular subgroups, such as Hazaras or public religious figures, and that the Applicants did not possess distinguishing characteristics placing them within such categories.
[23] The RAD concluded that the presumption of truthfulness had been rebutted by significant credibility concerns, that subjective fear had not been established, that adequate state protection existed, and that the Applicants had not demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment.
[24] The determinative issue is whether the RAD’s decision withstands reasonableness review.
[25] I agree with the parties that the RAD’s decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov].
The RAD conducted an independent assessment
[26] The Applicants assert, without pointing to any substantive evidence, that the RAD failed to conduct an independent assessment of the RPD’s reasoning.
[27] It is well established that, in exercising its appellate function, the RAD must apply the correctness standard when reviewing decisions of the RPD and must therefore undertake its own independent assessment of the claimant’s file to determine whether intervention is warranted: Huruglica v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 93 at paras 78–79, 103. The RAD cannot merely adopt or endorse the RPD’s findings in a perfunctory manner. That said, the RAD’s agreement with the RPD alone does not demonstrate that it failed to conduct an independent assessment of the issues: Ademi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 366 at para 28.
[28] In the present case, I am of the view that the RAD’s reasons demonstrate that it revisited the RPD’s findings, assessed the evidentiary record, and, applying proper deference where appropriate, confirmed that the RPD’s conclusion was correct. The RAD’s analysis reflects an independent evaluation rather than a mere adoption of the RPD’s result. The record also makes clear that the RAD addressed each of the RPD’s key findings and reassessed the evidence in respect of the following:
-
a)The credibility of the Applicants’ allegations of attacks by anti-Shia extremists;
-
b)The credibility of the Principal Applicant’s story of returning to Pakistan to visit his hospitalized sister and whether it was consistent with a subjective fear of persecution;
-
c)The credibility of the Applicants’ explanation of failing to seek refugee protection in Italy and whether it undermined their subjective fear of persecution; and
-
d)The credibility of the Applicants’ claim of forward-facing risk and the availability of state protection.
[29] Having reviewed the record, I am not persuaded that the RAD failed to conduct an independent assessment as the Applicants contend. They have not directed the Court to any portion of the record that supports this contention, nor does the decision itself disclose any indication that the RAD simply adopted the RPD’s reasoning without conducting its own analysis.
The RAD did not err in their credibility assessment
[30] The question on this review is whether the RAD erred in determining that the Applicants’ claim lacked credibility. Having carefully reviewed the record, I am not persuaded that the Applicants have identified any serious deficiency in the RAD’s reasoning.
[31] As noted, the RAD found that the Principal Applicant, Mr. Zubair, failed to provide a clear, consistent, and plausible account of the alleged attacks by anti-Shia extremists. It did not accept his explanation that unidentified members of LEJ, whom he characterized as armed extremists with significant reach and influence, were repeatedly thwarted by civilian bystanders without consequence. The RAD viewed this narrative as vague, internally inconsistent, and inherently improbable. Applying the balance of probabilities standard, it determined that the alleged attacks were not credibly established.
[32] The Applicants submit that the RAD erred in rejecting their account of the attacks, and in so doing, improperly assessed their credibility. They argue that the RAD placed disproportionate weight on what they characterize as “minor inconsistencies”
in their testimony, rather than assessing their narrative as a whole. The Respondent submits that the alleged inconsistencies were material and that the Applicants have not demonstrated any misapprehension of the evidence by the decision-maker.
[33] The Court does not intervene with credibility determinations by a decision-maker absent clear deficiencies that render the decision unintelligible or unsupported by the evidence: Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 619 at paras 26–28 [Zhou]. This principle was recently summarized in Liang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 720 at paragraphs 12 and 13:
[12] Credibility findings by the RPD demand a high level of judicial deference and should only be overturned in the clearest of cases (Khan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1330 at para 30). Credibility determinations have been described as “the heartland of the Board’s jurisdiction”, given that they are essentially pure findings of fact which are reviewable on a reasonableness standard (Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 619 at para 26; and Cetinkaya v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 8 at para 17).
[13] Under the Vavilov framework, the Court must respect and cannot interfere with a credibility assessment unless it is satisfied that the reasons of the RPD are not “justified, intelligible and transparent” which is assessed “not in the abstract” but from the point of view of the “individuals subject to” the decision (Vavilov at para 95). It is important for the reviewing court to ensure that an administrative decision maker has not abdicated its duty to “justify to the affected party, in a manner that is transparent and intelligible, the basis on which it arrived at a particular conclusion” (Vavilov at para 96). For the Applicant to succeed in the present matter, she must satisfy the Court that there are “sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision” (Vavilov at para 100).
[34] The Applicants submit that the inconsistencies relied on by a decision-maker are so minor or peripheral to the core of the claim that they amount to “microscopic scrutiny”
and warrant the Court’s intervention: Paul v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 54 at para 28; Zhou at para 28, citing Gebremichael v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 547 at para 37.
[35] The RAD and RPD each identified material gaps in the Principal Applicant’s account regarding the alleged attacks. When asked at the RPD hearing how he and his family consistently escaped physical harm during multiple encounters with armed extremists, Mr. Zubair testified that they were repeatedly rescued by bystanders because such intervention is “common”
in Pakistan and the incidents occurred during daylight hours when people were present. Both the RAD and RPD reasonably found this explanation vague and implausible in light of his description of LEJ as an armed and influential extremist group with significant reach. As the RAD noted, bystanders allegedly intervened quite successfully and rescued the family in “nearly every attack.”
[36] The relevant excerpt of the RPD hearing transcript is reproduced below:
CLAIMANT 1: They have several time attacked us, but uh, fortunately, we were lucky because we were saved by the other people who were around.
MEMBER: How did the other people who were around save you? Finish, sorry. Go ahead.
[…]
CLAIMANT 1: When in Pakistan, two (2) people fight, two (2) person fight then the other people who are around, they try to separate them and resolve them, and they did not know who was on the other side who was fighting.
MEMBER: So earlier on, when you spoke about the last time you were attacked, you said that they warned you and left. You did not mention that people came to help you, and that was why they left. So why did you fail to say that when you testified earlier?
CLAIMANT 1: Well, it was like a natural thing that in Pakistan, whenever there's someone attack or the person, the people come to rescue. And so that's why I was not able to tell this. But it is like I'm fortunate enough that whenever I was being attacked, there were people around in the surrounding area.
MEMBER: You said these people were armed, so how did people around the area help you from armed men?
[…]
CLAIMANT 1: So, these arms were hidden, so people could not see these arms, and when they took out their arms, then the people who were came for to save they ran away. So, in that the situation, the bullet could happen to on someone else side or they could have hit someone else. So, or I was fortunate enough so that God has saved me.
[37] I am not persuaded that the inconsistencies and implausibilities identified by the RAD and RPD are peripheral matters warranting judicial intervention. The Applicants’ claim rests on the alleged repeated attacks by members of LEJ, and thus the credibility of these incidents, including the plausibility of their escape on each occasion, goes to the core of their narrative.
[38] The RAD and RPD were entitled to draw negative inferences based on the deficiencies in the Applicant’s testimony. I see no basis to disturb that conclusion.
[39] The Applicants further submit that the RAD erred in rejecting their explanation for not seeking refugee protection in Italy. Mr. Zubair testified that he consulted a lawyer in Italy but was not advised of the possibility of making a refugee claim.
[40] At paragraph 24 of their memorandum, the Applicants assert that the RAD’s rejection of Mr. Zubair’s explanation was unreasonable:
In Paragraphs 16 through 19 the honorable member once again simply dismisses answers provided by the applicants concerning their decision making process. In those paragraphs the honorable member simply dismisses truthful answers provided by the applicants concerning why they made no claim for refugee protection in Italy and why they made the decision to flee to Canada. Once again the applicants respectfully submit that their testimony and evidence on this subject matter should have been deemed to be truthful and correct or full reasoning should have been provided why it was not acceptable; Islam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1246 at para 22; Rodriguez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 4 at para 8.
[41] I do not accept this submission. Both the RPD and RAD expressly addressed the Applicant’s explanation and found it unpersuasive. At paragraph 17 of its reasons, the RAD provided a clear and rational basis for disbelieving the Principal Applicant’s claim that he was unaware of the possibility of seeking asylum in Italy:
I find that this is not a satisfactory explanation. As the RPD correctly noted, objective evidence states that according to Italian law, there is no formal timeframe for making an asylum application when the applicant is in the country. The intention to make an asylum application may be expressed orally by the applicant in their language with the assistance of a linguistic-cultural mediator. Evidence also states that rejected asylum seekers have the right to appeal a negative decision, and when the appeal has no automatic suspensive effect, the applicants have the right to stay in Italy until the Court issues a decision on the suspension. Regarding the minor Appellants, objective evidence indicates that the protection of asylum-seeking children has been strengthened with the adoption of new laws.
[42] The Applicants offer no substantive critique of the RAD’s reasoning, nor do they identify any error in its assessment. Their disagreement appears to rest solely on a preference for a different outcome rather than on any demonstrated misapprehension of the evidence or error in principle.
[43] The Applicants submit that the RAD erred in rejecting the Principal Applicant’s explanation for returning to Pakistan to visit his hospitalized sister. However, the record again reveals that both the RPD and RAD identified multiple inconsistencies regarding his account, including conflicting statements about where he resided during the visit and his speculative assertion that members of LEJ located him through biometric data obtained when purchasing a SIM card. The RAD considered it unreasonable that an individual alleging a genuine fear of persecution would voluntarily return to the same region in which he claims armed extremists had recently targeted his family, and then remain there despite believing that those extremists could locate him through his phone.
[44] As with their prior submissions, the Applicants do not articulate any meaningful basis on which the RAD’s reasoning on this issue could be found unreasonable. Rather, they simply state that their explanations reflected their “truthful beliefs”
and argue that a decision-maker must consider a claimant’s explanation before drawing an adverse inference from reavailment: Sanchez Hernandez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 197 at paras 21–23 and Pulido Ruiz v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 258 at para 57. I am of the view that the RAD did just that. They acknowledged the Applicants’ offered explanation and provided clear reasons for finding their story lacking credibility.
[45] I find that many of the Applicants’ present submissions simply invite this Court to reweigh the evidence or substitute its assessment of credibility for that of the RAD. That is not the Court’s function on reasonableness review: Vavilov at para 125.
[46] Finally, on forward-facing risk, the Applicants submit that the RAD erred by disregarding evidence that Shia Muslims are frequently targeted by extremist religious groups throughout Pakistan and by failing to properly account for their status as converts. They further argue that the RAD unreasonably concluded that adequate state protection is available without making a clear finding as to their personal circumstances. In this regard, they assert that the RAD failed to assess the risk they faced as converts to Shia but looked only at their risk as Shia.
[47] The record does not support the Applicants’ claim that the RAD ignored country condition evidence. Rather, it demonstrates that the RAD undertook a detailed assessment of the conditions faced by Shia Muslims in Pakistan. At paragraph 24 of its decision, the RAD stated:
Objective evidence states that the steady decline in sectarian attacks against Shias is due to “the overall improvement in the security situation in Pakistan” and an increase in police security provided for Shia processions and sites of worship.9 Evidence shows that persecution of Shias on the ground in Pakistan is not the same everywhere and that “persecution does not exist in all regions of Pakistan”.
[48] The Applicants did not point to any evidence that converts to Shia are treated differently or are at more risk that non-converts.
[49] The RAD expressly considered the Applicants’ individual circumstances and the Principal Applicant’s claim that he was at greater risk due to his employment abroad and stated:
With regard to the PA’s argument that he is more of a target because he worked abroad, objective evidence indicates that “anyone returning from abroad is a ‘potential target for extortion due to perceived wealth’—particularly within the context of Pakistan's contemporary ‘unprecedented economic’ downturn— but that Shias would not be especially targeted in this regard. The same evidence indicates that Shia returnees from abroad do not face “particular difficulties or dangers” after returning to Pakistan.
[50] The same is true regarding the RAD’s assessment of the availability of state protection as it relates to the Applicants’ circumstances. At paragraph 26, the RAD noted:
The Appellants argue that objective evidence shows that “in general, people and Shia community do not rely on the law enforcement agencies” however, that same evidence states that “to an extent it also depends on the situation and the area”. The Appellants also point to evidence that states that police protection against sectarian hatred and violence is weak, and it is “possible” that police authorities themselves fear for their lives, especially in dealing with militant groups and that prosecutors and judges too fear for their lives and have been targeted. Conversely, objective evidence shows that authorities increased security for Shia Muslims, as well as other religious minorities, at places of worship at various times throughout the year and that security is provided throughout the country for the Shia community’s Muharram processions. Evidence shows that the state takes action to curtail extremist activities, such as increased security force presence and visibility, restrictions on clerics known for exacerbating sectarian tensions, suspension of cellular services, and heightened security monitoring, particularly in the run up to and during the month of
Muharram. Federal and provincial authorities increase security during Shia religious commemorations, reducing the risk of attack.
[51] The Appellants argue that objective evidence shows that “in general, people and Shia community do not rely on the law enforcement agencies” however, that same evidence states that “to an extent it also depends on the situation and the area”. The Appellants also point to evidence that states that police protection against sectarian hatred and violence is weak, and it is “possible” that police authorities themselves fear for their lives, especially in dealing with militant groups and that prosecutors and judges too fear for their lives and have been targeted. Conversely, objective evidence shows that authorities increased security for Shia Muslims, as well as other religious minorities, at places of worship at various times throughout the year and that security is provided throughout the country for the Shia community’s Muharram processions. Evidence shows that the state takes action to curtail extremist activities, such as increased security force presence and visibility, restrictions on clerics known for exacerbating sectarian tensions, suspension of cellular services, and heightened security monitoring, particularly in the run up to and during the month of Muharram. Federal and provincial authorities increase security during Shia religious commemorations, reducing the risk of attack.
[52] On review of the RAD’s reasons, I am not persuaded that it failed to meaningfully engage with the country evidence or the Applicants’ personal circumstances in its assessment of forward-facing risk and state protection.
[53] I find that the RAD did not err in its assessment of the Applicants’ credibility or in affirming the RPD’s findings. In my view, the RAD’s decision and its assessment of the evidence bear the hallmarks of reasonableness. Accordingly, there is no reviewable error.
[54] No question for certification was proposed.
Email this Content