Denied Sanctuary: One Man's Fight for Refugee Status While His Family Finds Safety
The promise of safety and a new beginning draws many to Canada's shores seeking refugee protection. For Mohamed Hussain Aslam and his family, that hope was partially realized when they arrived in May 2022, fleeing persecution in Pakistan and Russia. However, their journey through Canada's refugee system took an unexpected and painful turn.
While the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) recognized the well-founded fears of persecution faced by Mr. Aslam's wife and children, granting them refugee status, Mr. Aslam's own claim was refused. The RPD determined that he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Karachi, Pakistan – a place deemed safe for him to relocate within his home country.
This decision was subsequently upheld by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). Mr. Aslam's attempts to introduce new evidence at the appeal stage were largely unsuccessful, with the RAD finding that much of this evidence did not meet the strict criteria for admissibility. As a self-represented litigant, Mr. Aslam then sought judicial review of the RAD's decision, arguing that the rejection of his new evidence was an error and that he was not treated fairly.
The Federal Court, however, ultimately dismissed Mr. Aslam's application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to be reasonable in its treatment of the new evidence and its analysis of the Internal Flight Alternative.
Key Legal Principles Highlighted in the Aslam Case:
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA): This case underscores the importance of the IFA concept in Canadian refugee law. Authorities must consider whether a claimant can find safety in another part of their home country. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate why relocation is not a viable or reasonable option.
Admissibility of New Evidence at the RAD: The Aslam decision reinforces the stringent rules under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) regarding the admission of new evidence at the RAD level. Such evidence must have arisen after the RPD decision, or the claimant must demonstrate it was not reasonably available or could not have been reasonably expected to be presented at the initial RPD hearing.
The Role of the Self-Represented Litigant: While the system aims for fairness, self-represented litigants are still held to the same legal standards and rules of evidence. Understanding these rules and presenting a well-supported case is crucial.
Reasonableness Standard of Review: The Federal Court's review of the RAD's decision was based on the standard of reasonableness, meaning the court assessed whether the RAD's decision was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible. The court deferred to the RAD's expertise in refugee matters.
Implications for Refugee Claimants and Immigration Professionals:
The Aslam case serves as a critical reminder of several key points:
Present a Comprehensive Case at the RPD: The difficulty in admitting new evidence at the RAD highlights the paramount importance of presenting all relevant evidence and arguments thoroughly at the initial RPD hearing.
Address Potential IFAs Proactively: Refugee claimants should anticipate the possibility of an IFA assessment and be prepared to provide detailed reasons and evidence as to why relocation within their home country would not be safe or reasonable.
Understand the Rules of Evidence: Whether represented or self-represented, a clear understanding of the rules of evidence is essential for a successful refugee claim.
Seek Legal Counsel: Navigating the complexities of refugee law, particularly issues like IFA and evidence admissibility, can be incredibly challenging. Engaging experienced legal counsel can significantly increase the chances of a positive outcome.
