Man used social media and went to award ceremony despite alleged fear for his life, ruling finds
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review application brought by a Pakistani actor and model who challenged a decision rejecting his refugee protection claim. The court found the decision reasonable and procedurally fair.
The applicant in Sameed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1384, appeared in a television series that portrayed the Pakistani military fighting against certain militant groups. His telefilm, which allegedly aired in early 2018, portrayed a man misled by the militant movement into participating in a suicide bombing.
The applicant claimed that he later received death threats from supposed members of these groups. In June 2018, while he was on the way to the police station to file a report, unknown gunmen allegedly shot at his vehicle. He crashed the car and suffered injuries. After this incident, he moved to other cities in Pakistan.
In July 2018, he went to Canada to attend an award ceremony where he had received a nomination. In October 2018, he filed a refugee protection claim. He claimed that his family in Pakistan continued to face threats and went into hiding.
In October 2021, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the refugee claim due to credibility issues. This prompted the applicant to take the case to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), where he provided additional evidence.
The RAD admitted some new evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The RAD found insufficient credible evidence to establish that the applicant faced a genuine risk of persecution in Pakistan.
The RAD made the following findings:
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The RAD properly assessed the evidence and justifiably found it insufficient to substantiate the alleged persecution to support the applicant’s refugee claim, the court ruled.
The Federal Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the RAD's decision was procedurally unfair because the RAD held no oral hearing. The RAD need not hold an oral hearing as the new evidence failed to raise a serious issue about the applicant’s credibility that would justify such a hearing under s. 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001, the court held.
The court also disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the RAD failed to properly assess the credibility of his evidence. The RAD reasonably required corroborative evidence, given the credibility concerns, the court said.
The court also noted the following. First, the hospital report following the alleged assassination attempt documented the applicant’s injuries but failed to provide proof of the attempt itself. Second, the police report mentioned a car crash but did not touch upon gunshots or an assassination attempt. Third, the applicant failed to give evidence of car damage.
