A Pakistani refugee who returned to his homeland six times between 2016 and 2022 has been granted a judicial review, giving him another chance to retain his Canadian refugee status, the National Post reports.Irfan Ahmed came to Canada in 2014 under the Overseas Refugee Convention program. He said he faced persecution as a member of the Ahmadi sect, a religious minority in Pakistan.His refugee status was later revoked after immigration authorities discovered that he had traveled to Pakistan multiple times, spending a total of 336 days in the country. Ahmed also visited the Pakistani Consulate in Toronto twice to obtain a passport.
Canada’s Refugee Protection Division had determined that Ahmed “voluntarily benefited from Pakistani protection” and did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge this. The court also questioned his stories of persecution, saying his description “evolved depending on his audience,” fluctuating between fear of religious extremists and government authorities. The Refugee Protection Division found Ahmed’s statements inconsistent and said his actions, including a large wedding and bringing his family to Pakistan, showed no personal fear of persecution.
On February 18, Federal Court Judge Avvi Yau Yau Ju ruled in favor of Ahmed, saying that the RPD had found inconsistencies “where they do not exist.” The judge added that the court “compounded this error by failing to consider the main precautionary measure taken by the plaintiff against religious extremists while in Pakistan,” including avoiding going to mosques.“While the RPD noted the evidence provided by the applicant that he did not attend the mosque or interact with the wider community,” Joe wrote. He added: “The DPR never considered this evidence when conducting its analysis of the applicant’s intent… Rather, the DPR focused on the fact that the applicant had a ‘large wedding’, the length of his visits, and the fact that the applicant brought his family to Pakistan, and found that these factors indicated no personal fear of persecution.”
By failing to address critical evidence that might refute the intention to re-utilize, the RDP failed to fulfill its strict duty to provide justifiable, transparent and clear reasons to explain its decision.
“The court granted Ahmed judicial review and sent the case back “for re-adjudication by a differently constituted committee of the Refugee Protection Division.”Ahmed’s lawyer, Daniel Kingwell, praised the ruling. “We are very pleased with the judge’s ruling.
The court acknowledged that Mr Ahmed had given a number of reasons for returning to Pakistan which had not been adequately assessed by the Council – in particular to carry out essential family duties including his marriage, the birth of his child, and the illness and death of his parents. He added that Ahmadiyya mosques were “primary targets” for extremists and that Ahmed’s behavior in Pakistan was consistent with his ongoing need to protect refugees.Immigration lawyer Sergio Karas questioned the decision, citing Ahmed’s frequent and prolonged visits as undermining his asylum claim. “While short trips for emergencies may be understandable, multiple trips over a long period of time, and remaining in the country of alleged persecution for weeks or months, seem to run counter to the alleged fear of persecution,” Karas said. “And obtaining Pakistani passports not once, but twice, indicates a lack of concern for safety.”
