CAT/C/61/D/687/2015 protection on the basis of political opinion must show that he has a fear of persecution for holding opinions different from those of a government which has demonstrated that it will not tolerate such opinions. The Division noted that opposition to the views and actions of extremist groups such as Sipah e Sahaba is widespread among the general population in Pakistan, and the Government of Pakistan had made efforts to suppress Sipah e Sahaba. According to the State party, such intervention is indicative of the opposition of the Government of Pakistan to the group. The Division noted that the complainant had testified to having knowledge of previous police raids against Sipah e Sahaba’s offices and mosque, and therefore found that State protection was available with regard to the actions of that group. The Division also found that there was no evidence to suggest that the complainant would fear the authorities of Pakistan or that he was at risk of being prosecuted by the authorities because of his identity as a Sunni Muslim or because of his opposition to the actions of Sipah e Sahaba in relation to their treatment of W.B. 4.8 The Refugee Protection Division and the pre-removal risk assessment officer had also determined that the complainant had an internal flight alternative available to him in Pakistan, noting that his family originally moved to Sialkot and that there was no evidence to explain why the complainant did not move with them or that they were in danger there. The Division noted that the complainant’s family subsequently moved back to Lahore and there was no evidence that they were in danger at the hands of Sipah e Sahaba upon their return. The Division also noted that W.B. had relocated to Karachi. The complainant was questioned about why he could not move to Karachi or Islamabad and he responded that his family now lived in Lahore. The Division determined that, in case he felt unsafe in Lahore, he could live safely in Karachi or Islamabad. 4.9 As the Refugee Protection Division’s analysis of the evidence and the conclusions made were appropriate and well founded, the Federal Court declined to interfere with the Division’s decision. In the complainant’s case, the State party argues that a thorough assessment of his allegations was carried out by all domestic decision makers who considered his applications. 4.10 The State party also argues that there are important inconsistencies in the complainant’s allegations, which should lead the Committee to carefully scrutinize the communication. In particular, the State party considers that the Committee should not believe the complainant’s allegations that he is the subject of a fatwa from Sipah e Sahaba because he has provided inconsistent information in that regard: (a) in his communication, he claims that Sipah e Sahaba posted fatwas on the door of his home in Pakistan in June 2014 and again on 3 August 2014. However, the documents on which he relies to support this claim provide inconsistent information. There is no mention of any fatwa in the letter from his lawyer, nor in the declarations of his brother or his neighbour. In addition, in the affidavits of his wife, his brother-in-law and his brother, it is said that the fatwa was issued in June 2011; (b) in his request to the Canada Border Services Agency for an administrative deferral of removal, dated 18 June 2015, he says that Sipah e Sahaba posted a fatwa “in the locality in Pakistan where [the] applicant was residing and running his business in June, 2010”, while in his pre-removal risk assessment application, he claimed that Sipah e Sahaba had posted a fatwa on the door of his shop in June 2014; and (c) there is no mention of a fatwa on the complainant’s personal information form dated 15 June 2011, nor was there during his testimony before the Refugee Protection Division, which took place on 4 July 2013. 4.11 The State party considers that the Committee should not believe the complainant when he claims that Sipah e Sahaba declared him “a blasphemer and kafir”, given that he did not make this claim on his personal information form, on his pre-removal risk assessment application or in his request to the Canada Border Services Agency for a deferral of his removal. Additionally, the complainant claims that Sipah e Sahaba has the full support of the police in Pakistan, while in his request to the Canada Border Services Agency for a deferral of removal he did not make such a claim but stated that Sipah e Sahaba was a “banned Sunni hardliner terrorist organization”. The State party also notes that the complainant does not make this claim in his personal information form or in his pre-removal risk assessment application. 5