1402705 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3208

1402705 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3208 (27 January 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1402705

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:27 January 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 27 January 2016 at 5:31pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa [in] April 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] January 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 February 2015 and again on 9 June 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

6. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

8. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

10. The issue in this case is whether the applicant will be seriously or significantly harmed on return to Pakistan. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

11. Under cover of a submission from the representatives, the applicant provided an application for protection in which he indicates he was born in Sahiwal, Punjab, speaks Urdu, English and Punjabi, and is of the Shia Muslim faith. Also provided was a statutory declaration in which he claims:

    I was born on [date] in Sahiwal, Pakistan. My father's name is [the applicant’s father’s name].

    By birth I am a Sunni Muslim. I was raised in a Sunni family, and told that the Shia's in my country were not Muslims (kafir). I didn't know any Shia's when I was growing up. I was told that they prayed the wrong way, they were fakes and they were liars. I wasn't allowed to associate or eat with any Shia people.

    I completed my early education in my home town of Sahiwal. I completed my matriculation in [year] at the [named] School in Sahiwal. I then went on to study at the [named college] and graduated in [year].

    After completing school I got a job at [company]. It was about two years into this job, around [year] when I first began exploring and learning about the Shia religion. Before this time I had never known any Shia's because my family had restricted me from meeting any. The company I worked for was a multi-national company so the employees came from all over Pakistan. This meant that I was finally able to meet Shia people. I became interested in their religion and I made many new Shia friends.

    After talking with them about their faith, I was really surprised because I realised that despite what I had been told when I was growing up, Shia's were Muslim too and I became really inspired by their attitude toward religion. I discovered that Shia's were not only good Muslims but their religion and traditions are much closer to reality and my own values. Islam started from the Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H. and he had a daughter named Hazrat Fatima R.A. She was married to Hazrat Ali and being a Shia I am a follower of Hazrat Ali. I found that the real Islam belongs to this family and the Shia way of praying and belief that "we are all the family of Mohammad" are more true to the Al Qur'an compared to what I was raised believing.

    Another thing that inspired me was that they were always treated as a minority and never dominated, or forced their beliefs onto others because they were the minority. Even though they were not allowed to talk about their sect with other sects i.e, Sunni, Wahabis etc. In my country the Shias are well educated and well civilized compared to the other sects. We would discuss religion at work, but I didn't act on my interest as I was too afraid of my family and Jamat Ahle Sunnat finding out as they have a strong influence.

    I worked at [company] until 2008. I then applied for a Student Visa to Australia and arrived in Australia in 2008.

    In Australia I enrolled in [a named] College and begun a Diploma of [subject] and studied there until the college was closed down in 2009. I then enrolled in a new [college].

    In 2009 I returned to Pakistan for the first time since arriving in Australia. I returned to celebrate [a family event] as well the eve of Eid.

    Although I was in Pakistan for only a short amount of time, I managed to meet with a few of my friends from the [Company] who belong to the Shia community. I continued to talk to them about my interest in the Shia religion, and I was encouraged more that this was the religion that I wanted to be a part of. But still I was a little bit confused.

    After three or four weeks I returned home to Australia and kept myself busy in my studies and job. In Muharram (Muharram is the first month in the Islamic calendar and is a sacred month for Muslims) 2010 I participated for the first time in a Shia ceremony in [Australia] held under the organistaion of [a community organisation] and whenever I had spare time I would research the Shia religion. As I had been brought up in a completely Sunni family and community I knew very little about the Shia beliefs and traditions and became very interested in learning as much as I could about them.

    Almost three years later, in 2012 I returned to Pakistan for a festival celebration with my family. My trip coincided with the month of Muharram. There are many activities including fasting, prayer, meditation and mourning. I used this opportunity to learn more about the Shia religion. I met with Shia scholars, attended Shia Majalis and Jaloos (processions) and took part in other Shia activities. My participations in these Shia activities was not free or open as I used to go alone without telling anyone because my family was also very active with Jamat Ahle Sunnat as they consider they are part of this organizations.

    Finally on [a date in] November 2012 I converted to the Shia sect. Internally I felt so relaxed and satisfied with my decision. It felt natural to me to join this sect and I was glad that I was finally a part of this community. However, I also knew that I could not share this feeling with my family because I was worried about their reactions if they knew that I had converted and the outcome from other Sunni organisations would be much worst.

    After my conversion I delayed my return ticket to [Australia] and continued to attend more Shia events when possible. I did not mention to any of my family members my conversion to the Shia sect because I was worried about how they would react. In December 2012 I flew back to [Australia].

    In [Australia] I made good relations with some of my Shia friends who were already living here. I would sometimes go to their houses to discuss religion or attend meetings. I would especially get together with fellow Shia's in the month of Muharram to celebrate.

    A few months later, in February 2013 I came to know that my mother had become ill. My brother called me and urged me to come back to Pakistan as soon as possible. I made urgent arrangements to return to Pakistan.

    When I reached Pakistan I saw that my mother was indeed very sick. I also soon learned that my brother, cousins and the rest of my family members were blaming me for her condition.

    Apparently some members of the Sunni organization Jamaat Ahle Sunnat had taken my picture when I was attending Shia Majalis and Jaloos and showed my family, telling them that I was very active in the Shia community. This is how my family came to know that I had converted to the Shia sect.

    The next day some members of Jamaat Ahle Sunnat came to the house with my brother and cousin and began speaking to me about the Sunni religion. They tried to persuade me to convert back to the Sunni sect, and of course I said no. After they realised I wouldn't agree they tried to force me, and eventually they began threatening me.

    They said that they would kill me if I did not convert back to Sunni and make an example of me so that no one else would dare to do what I had done. Because Sunni people think that Shia's are not Muslim, they think that anyone who converts and abandon's Islam should be killed.

    [In] March 2013 I went to the police to file a complaint against my brother and cousin and the Jamaat Ahle Sunnat members who threatened me. The police did not accept my complaint and instead they threatened me as well. This is when I became worried, because I knew that there was no one to stand up for me or protect me.

    A few days later I tried to have a conversation with my family and explain my conversion. The discussion turned into an argument and as a result my family disowned me and threw me out of the house.

    I didn't know where to go because none of my family members would accept me. I went to the house of one of my friends and stayed there without telling anyone.

    I then saw that my brother had published the news of my disownment due to my Conversion in National newspapers, along with my photo on [date range in] March 2013. They published my photo intentionally so that the people of Jamat Ahle Sunnat who were not aware of my conversion also knew that I had converted and they could also take any action against me.

    One night when I was staying with my friend I decided to go to visit another friend of mine. I was on my motorbike when I was approached by four men on motorbikes. They motioned for me to stop my bike. I stopped my bike and one of the men asked if I was [applicant’s name]. I confirmed my identity. They then asked me if I knew who they were and I responded 'no'. They told me that they were looking for me for a couple of days and they had been sent to warn me that I was facing great danger. They said that they would give me two days to convert back to the Sunni religion otherwise the results will be painful. Then two of them pulled guns out and showed me. They threatened that this was my first and last warning They were very abusive and I was so shocked and terrified. My family, the police and everyone was against me.

    My friend suggested that I go to court to submit a petition. So I submitted a petition against my brother, my cousin and Jamat Ahle Sunnat because I was almost certain that they were the ones who had sent these men to threaten me. As Jamat Ahle Sunnat is the organization that is very aggressive and against Shias. They are very well known for their attacks on Shias and with my name and picture being published in the papers I did not feel that I was safe anywhere from being attacked because of my conversion to Shia. That was the thing that made me upset and threatened.

    My return flight for [Australia] was booked for [a date in] March 2013 but I was feeling afraid and unsafe and I was worried about what I would do if I was attacked. My friend suggested I leave the country so I changed my flight and returned to [Australia] [a few days earlier].

    After getting back here in [Australia] I called my friend about the current scenario in Pakistan and he said you made a right decision to get back because people are still looking for me. All these things have made be very scared and I have become very upset and depressed with my current circumstances as I am afraid to return to Pakistan as I will be attacked and killed.

12. Also provided with the submission were certified copies of the applicant’s current and former Pakistan passport.

13. A number of documents in support of the applicant’s claims were provided, including:

    ·Certified copy of Applicant's Affidavit dated [in] November 2012, together with English translation, confirming his conversion to the Shia religion;

    ·Certified copy of statement by [Leader A] dated [in] November 2012, together with English translation, evidencing that the Applicant converted to the Shia religion;

    ·Certified copy of Application to Police, together with English translation, written by the Applicant confirming the attack on [a date in] March 2013.

    ·Certified copy of Notice of Disinheritance, together with English translation, published in [Newspaper 1] on [a date in] 2013 evidencing the Applicant's family's rejection of the Application following his conversion.

    ·Certified copy of Notice of Disinheritance, together with English translation, published in [Newspaper 2] on [a date in] 2013 evidencing the Applicant's family's rejection of the Application following his conversion and publication of his photograph.

    ·A Selection of photographs showing the Applicant participating in a Shia ceremony held by the [community organisation], during Muharram, in [Australia] in 2010.

    ·Articles and papers supporting protection claims

    ·Article titled 'Karachi: Another Shiite shot dead by terrorists' dated 23 March 2013 published by shiakilling.com evidencing the attacks on Shiites in Karachi

    ·Relevant extract from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 2012, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan.

    ·Asian Humans Rights Commission 2012, Pakistan: The Killing of Shias —It is hard to refute the accusation that the military was involved. 29 February 2012

    ·Bahadur, K. 2007, Islamisation in Pakistan: A Case Study of Punjab, Observer Research Foundation, Issue Brief 12

    ·Article titled 'Monthly Report: 165 Killed in February, 271 Injured' dated 18 March 2013 published by shiakilling.com evidencing ongoing incidences of violence against Shiites in Pakistan

    ·Article titled 'Karachi: Syed Sibt-e-Jaffar Zaidi gunned down by Sipah-e-Sahaba terrorists' dated 18 March 2013 published by shiakilling.com evidencing attacks on Shiites in Karachi

    ·United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2012, USCIRF Annual Report 2012 — Countries of Particular concern: Pakistan.

    ·Extract from United Kingdom Country of Origin Report on Pakistan, December 2012.

14. After the departmental interview, a number of documents and other evidence were provided, including three CDs of the applicant participating in [Australian] Muharram celebrations in 2013, photographs of his participation, a letter from his employer for leave over the period of Muharram for that year, a statutory declaration from a friend and a copy of a receipt from the [community organisation] dated [in] November 2013 for membership.

15. The delegate refused the application, finding that false documentation is readily available in Pakistan, meaning the delegate placed more weight on the applicant’s verbal and written account when assessing his claim. The delegate found the reasons given by the applicant for his conversion were not convincing, and found that his conversion shortly before he applied for protection cast doubt on the genuineness of his claim. The delegate noted that the applicant had not had any contact with leaders of the [community organisation] despite living in Australia since 2008. The delegate considered that if the applicant was a genuine convert to the Shia sect and residing in Australia he had the opportunity to develop a relationship with the [community organisation] and seek assistance and advice. The delegate found his level of knowledge and connection not consistent with someone who claimed to have been interested in the sect since 2003, and found that his approaches in this area were sporadic, superficial and recent. The delegate noted that the applicant had provided documents showing he had joined the [community organisation] in November 2013 but considered that the fact the applicant only took this action after the PV interview cast doubt on his genuine commitment to his claimed new faith. The delegate noted that the applicant had only lodged his application four days before his last held student visa ceased, and found that the delay in submitting a protection visa raised serious concerns. The delegate did not accept that the applicant was a genuine convert to the Shia sect, and did not find his claims that his family discovered his conversion and that he received threats to be credible. The delegate went on to note that if the applicant did wish to practice as a Shia in Pakistan he would be one of thousands and there was not a real risk of him being harmed were he to return. The delegate noted that they had concerns about the credibility and plausibility of his claims and so did not accept the documentary evidence that he had been disinherited by his family or targeted by Sunni individuals or organisations.

16. The applicant applied for review and included a copy of the delegate’s decision with his application.

17. A submission was made on 4 February 2015 which set out the applicant’s background and claims, the situation for Shia in Pakistan and in Punjab province. The submission addresses the concerns raised by the delegate. The submission addresses complementary protection. Attached to the submission was a further statutory declaration made by the applicant on 3 February 2015. This is largely a restatement of his earlier claims, with additional information as follows:

    19.      I became a member of [the community organisation] in October 2013, although I had attended events prior to this. I explained during the DIBP interview that I was participating in events at the [community organisation] without being a member. The case officer asked for some evidence of this. As I was participating more and more in events and because Muharram was approaching I decided to take out a membership at the end of 2013 as this was my first Muharram as a Shia. As a member it was possible for me to attend these activities and events and I would continuously receive information and emails about upcoming functions.

    20.      During the interview the DIBP delegate asked about my participation in the Shia community. I explained that 2013 was my first year as a Shia and that Muharram was my first major event which I participated in during November and December 2013. I also explained that living in [suburb] it was a long way for me to travel to the [community organisation] (in [another suburb]) regularly, given my employment and study commitments. I explained that there was a Shia Mosque in [suburb] but that they spoke Pashtun at this Mosque and that there was little point in me attending this Mosque as I did not speak or understand Pashto. As a result I explained that I practiced my religion at home most of the time and attended the [community organisation] for the more significant events and religious occasions. I did not state that the people at the [community organisation] spoke Pashto.

    21.      It was after this that I felt that I became even more confident and assured in my belief and I started attending the rituals and all religious activities during the Muharram period. The days of Muharram are very important as a Shia and there is a lot to learn. During this year, it was my first time to attend these sacred days as a Shia myself. I could see things more clearly and my understanding and sense of belonging continued to grow,

    22.      I was not only excited by just being there (which I had done in the past) but I was also now able to play an active role within the [community organisation], including contributing financially. These ten days were a very important thing to me because all my Shia friends were encouraging me and never let me down or forced me to do anything.

    23.      These days had a magical effect and I kept going to [the community organisation] for Ramazan too after spending the Muharram there. This is a significant time as Imam Ali (A.S.) was martyred in Ramazan 21st so this is another important time to go.

    24.      Then Muharram 2014 came which I attended In 2014. I would attend and listen to the scholars and learn as much as I can. I also kept going to the [community organisation] for other occasions, such as functions or sometimes for prayers time. I would mention here that in Muharram the [community organisation] organised the events to be held at [a specified venue] and Ramazan was held at [another venue]. They use this location because a lot of Shia people attend during these days because of how important these religious days are.

    25.      Muharram 2014 had better effect on me. I was more confident and had a sense of freedom and was relaxed. This Muharram made me even stronger in my beliefs towards the Shia sect and I feel like I continued to learn more and more. It was a good step because other members always asked me to research and understand Shia ways and always encouraged me in my beliefs, It was a way to answer all my questions.

    26.      The 10th Muharram was the day of my life time because I attended this Ialoos in open air. The Jaloos was from [one specified venue] to [another venue]. I felt an intense sense of freedom and had no fear of anyone spotting me or getting caught. It was a pleasant feeling. I could walk free down the road showing my belief in a peaceful march. I felt this way too because now I was far away from anyone threatening me or trying to force me to return back to the Sunni sect.

    27.      I thought that day if I ever stay in Australia then I would have a balanced and happy life here in future. The past two years have had an astronomical impact on me, both mentally and emotionally after whatever happened to me in Pakistan and having to flee Pakistan in order to save my life.

1. A number of documents in support of the applicant’s claims were provided, including documents already submitted to the Department as well as a number of photos of the applicant at Muharram 2014 in [Australia] and a selection of articles about attacks on Shia in Pakistan and other parts of the world.

2. At hearing the applicant provided a further invoice from the [community organisation] for the year ending 31 August 2015. He also provided originals of two of the newspapers which included the notices of disinheritance.

3. After the hearing a submission was made dated 13 March 2015 which noted again that document fraud in general may not have application to the documents provided by the applicant, invited the Tribunal to verify the newspapers provided, stated that the affidavit referred to by the applicant at hearing was his [March] 2013 affidavit which had not previously been provided, not the [November] 2012 affidavit, that the [November] 2012 affidavit was produced so [Leader A] could indicate that the applicant converted of his own free will, and so that the applicant did not have to pay Zakat, and he included a copy of his Pakistani bank account showing it was active at that time. it was argued that it is difficult to obtain records from Pakistan. Included with the submission was an affidavit of the applicant made in Sahiwal dated [in] March 2013 in support of the police report, confirming that he was instructed to provide an affidavit to support his police report, a police report receipt dated [in] March 2013 confirming the applicant attended the police station, a copy of the applicant’s Pakistani bank account, confirming he held an active account in late 2012, an article about an individual killed by a policeman who cited the blasphemy laws.

4. On 27 March 2015 translations of the affidavit to support his police report, police report receipt dated [in] March 2013 confirming the applicant attended the police station, and a copy of the court petition/application dated [in] march 2013 against the police department, the applicant’s brother and cousin were provided. A DVD of videos of the applicant attending Muharram 2013 and 2014 was also provided.

5. A further hearing was held on 9 June 2015. At this hearing, information adverse to the applicant, obtained from the Pakistan Post was put to the applicant. This information was also sent to the applicant in writing after the hearing.

6. On 15 July 2015 a submission was made which responded to the information put and addressed relocation.

   Identity and nationality

7. The applicant has provided copies of his past and current Pakistan passport. On the basis of this evidence, and with no evidence to the contrary I find that the applicant is who he claims to be, and is a citizen of Pakistan. I have assessed his claims against Pakistan as his country of nationality and his receiving country.

8. At hearing the applicant stated that he did not have a right to enter and reside in any third country. With no evidence to the contrary I find he does not have such a right.

   Credibility

9. In assessing the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal notes that the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear, that the fear is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed.  A fear of persecution is not “well-founded” if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169 70.)

10. In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the applicant's credibility and, in doing so, the Tribunal is aware of the need and importance of being sensitive to the difficulties asylum seekers often face. Accordingly, the Tribunal notes that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all of their claims.

11. On the other hand, as stated previously, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all allegations made by an applicant. In addition, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been established. Nor is the Tribunal obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant's country of nationality (See Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451, per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547).

12. This case raises considerable credibility concerns. As well as the matters set out below, the applicant’s evidence contained significant inconsistencies and implausibilities.

    The notices of disinheritance

13. The delegate had concerns with the credibility of many of the applicant’s claims. Having spoken to him on two occasions I also have credibility concerns. At the applicant’s urging, and given my credibility concerns, I sent the key documents in this case, the notices of disinheritance, to the Australian Post in Pakistan for verification.

14. The applicant claims that on his last visit his family had discovered his conversion, and when he refused to recant, his brother, cousin and members of Jamaat Ahle Sunnat threatened him. After trying to discuss it with his family he was thrown out of the family home. A few days later he found that his brother had published the news of his disownment, along with his photo, in [a] newspapers on [two dates in] 2013. He claims that they published his photo so that Jamat Ahle Sunnat, who were not aware of his conversion, would know that he had converted, and would take action against him. At the second hearing I asked him if this was what had happened and he confirmed it. I asked how he knew his brother had published the advertisements and he said that his mother was the head of the family but she could not go anywhere without his brother.

15. I then put to him the substance of adverse information which I had received from the Australian Post in Pakistan, which was that the Newspapers [Newspaper 1] and [Newspaper 2] have confirmed that these ads were placed in their newspapers on the dates in question, [two dates in] 2013 respectively. The Australian government officials in Pakistan researched and stated that these were in the Lahore versions, rather than in the Islamabad edition.

16. The Australian Government officials contacted [Newspaper 1]. The editor confirmed that the advertisement was placed in the Lahore edition [the date in] March 2013. The editor confirmed that this was paid for by your mother.

17. The Australian Government officials contacted the [Newspaper 2] Editor who confirmed the advertisement "was published in [Newspaper 2] Lahore on page [number]" on [a date in] 2013. The Editor also stated that "[the applicant] himself" paid for it. 

18. I explained to the applicant that it may indicate he had not told the truth about who paid for the advertisements, that it may indicate that the advertisements had limited circulation, in the Lahore area, and were placed in the newspaper a considerable time ago. I noted that, subject to any comment or response he made, it may indicate that he had lied about the advertisements; that he himself had organized for the advertisements to be placed with the assistance of his family, which may lead me to find that he would not suffer harm at the hands of his family as claimed, that he has no subjective fear of being harmed as a result of the advertisements, as he himself placed them, and this may lead me to find there is no objective basis for him fearing harm from the advertisements. Further, I indicated, I may find that this information, either alone or with the other issues raised, leads me to find that the applicant is not a witness of truth, and that none of his claims about what he says he has done or happened to him have in fact happened, specifically that he is not a convert to Shia, has not been harmed for that or any reason and will not face harm on this basis or any other.

19. The applicant indicated that he wished to respond in writing. In the response the following arguments were put forward.

20. The applicant strongly denied that he had any involvement in the payment or placement of the advertisement in the [Newspaper 2] newspaper. He made his own inquiries with the [Newspaper 2], contacting a Sahiwal reporter who confirmed that the Sahiwal area reporters were contacted by the newspaper’s Lahore office regarding the applicant’s advertisement and they provided the Lahore office with a copy of the affidavit made by the applicant’s mother, however, no information suggesting that the applicant paid for the advertisement was provided to the Lahore office as this information does not exist. The applicant is unable to explain why the Lahore office allegedly stated that he paid for the advertisement and has been denied the opportunity to review the email referred to in the DFAT report. It is noted that the Executive Director of [Newspaper 1], who is referred to by name, confirmed that payment for that advertisement was made by the applicant’s mother, and was able to indicate that the payment was made through the Sahiwal bureau chief. It is claimed that the lack of information or detail received from the [Newspaper 2], compared to [Newspaper 1] should be a factor considered in determining the reliability of the information provided. The submission went on to discuss research done by the representative that the requirements for placing a notice of disinheritance required a copy of the national identity card of the person seeking to publish the notice, an affidavit and payment of the fee. The submission notes that it would then be an easy task to determine who paid for the advertisement – all that would be required is for the newspaper to provide these documents. the applicant submits that if he had paid for the advertisement, the newspaper should have a copy of his national identity card and receipt, that this information should have been provided to the Tribunal and if so the applicant requests access to this information so that he can provide further comment. It is then submitted that in the event this information is unavailable and given the lack of specific information provided by the editor of the [Newspaper 2], in comparison to that provided by executive director of [Newspaper 1], it is submitted that further information should be sourced from the [Newspaper 2] or that the information received should be given little weight.

21. It was further submitted by the applicant that there would be no logical reason for the applicant to have paid for his own disinheritance notice,  the [Newspaper 1] advertisement, paid by his mother, was placed prior to the [Newspaper 2] advertisement, and it would be reasonable to expect that his involvement would have occurred in the earliest advertisement, as if he had already secured the cooperation of his mother for the first advertisement, there would be no need for him to pay or arrange for the second advertisement.

22. In support of this a letter was provided from a person from [Newspaper 3] which has a heading ‘Requirement of notice of disinheritance’ and lists out the three requirements as raised in the submissions above.

23. Having considered the adverse information from the DFAT report, and the claims and arguments made in the submissions, I do not accept any of these claims or arguments for the following reasons. I do not accept the claim of the applicant that he has contacted a Sahiwal based reporter who has provided different information to that of the editor. There is no detail of how he contacted the reporter, any evidence of this contact, any verification that this person does indeed work for the [Newspaper 2]. I consider it very likely that this claim has been invented by the applicant to explain the adverse information, and I prefer and give greater weight to the DFAT report. I do not accept the claim that the information from the Editor of the [Newspaper 2] is lacking in detail when compared to the information from the executive director of [Newspaper 1]. This is a false comparison - the information from the [Newspaper 2] must be assessed on its own merits, not on the basis of a false comparison with a similar set of information from [Newspaper 1]. I do not accept that there is a lack of detail in the information from the [Newspaper 2] – the Editor responded to the questions asked of him by the Post. The submission states that research has been done into what is required for the placing of a notice of disinheritance. The basis of this research appears to be a letter from a third newspaper, [Newspaper 3]. There is no indication that this is a national or state based set of requirements, or that it applies to the [Newspaper 2] (Or [Newspaper 1] for that matter). There is no other citation or reference provided for the assertion that these documents are required to place a notice of disinheritance. On the evidence before me I do not accept that these are necessarily required by [Newspaper 2] or [Newspaper 1]. Even if they were, I do not accept that the Tribunal is under a duty to seek these documents from the [Newspaper 2], which the [Newspaper 2] may or may not require and which the [Newspaper 2] may or may not have retained, given the long period since these notices were placed. I do not consider it necessary that these documents be obtained because in my assessment, the DFAT report establishes a basis for finding that we know who has paid for the advertisement in the [Newspaper 2], being the applicant. I do not consider that there is any requirement, need or utility in seeking the documents indicated in the submission. I can see no basis for claiming that this information should have been provided to the Tribunal, nor for the claim that the information provided from the [Newspaper 2] is deficient and not specific enough and that further information should be sought. I find that many of the claims are based on a number of assumptions which do not stand up to scrutiny.  Lastly, it is claimed that there is no logical reason for the applicant to have paid for the notices, that his mother could have done it as she did for the [Newspaper 1] advertisement which was lodged earlier. I find this claim speculative, I do not agree that there is no logical reason, there are a multitude of possibilities as to why his mother paid for the earlier one but he paid for the later one, she may have been unavailable on that day, or some other reason may have limited her ability to pay for that advertisement. I do not accept this claim or the claimed logic of it.

24. Having considered the arguments and claims, I have weighed these against the DFAT report. I find that the information from the editor of the [Newspaper 2] excerpted in the DFAT report is clear and unambiguous, as is that from the Executive Editor of [Newspaper 1]. I find that the DFAT report has been based on information sourced from the relevant parties and has included a considerable amount of work by the DFAT post to verify the newspaper, make contact with the relevant persons at those newspapers, and seek responses from them. I find that the DFAT report and the excerpts contained are authoritative, well sourced and I give the DFAT report significant weight, and in particular when considered against the arguments and claims made in the submission. I accept that the applicant strongly denies he had any involvement in the placing of the advertisement. However, as above, I prefer and give greater weight to the DFAT report and the information contained that was put to him, and find that I can place no weight on his disavowal.

25. I find that the applicant did not tell the truth about who paid for the advertisements, and I find that he paid for the advertisement in the [Newspaper 2], as indicated in the excerpted information in the DFAT report.

26. I find therefore that his claims in his statement and at the hearing that these advertisements were placed after a falling out with his family, were placed by his mother with the help of his brother and were intended to indicate to Jamat Ahle Sunnat, who were not aware of his conversion, that he had converted, so that they would take action against him. I find that these claims are untrue and did not happen.

27. I find that the applicant lied about the advertisements, and how they were paid for and organised. I find that he himself organized for the advertisements to be placed, with the assistance of his family. This leads me to find that he would not suffer harm at the hands of his family as claimed, because they had assisted and acted in concert with him to place the adverts. I find therefore that he has no subjective fear of being harmed as a result of the advertisements, as he himself placed or organised for them to be placed.

28. The placing of the advertisement, which I have found the applicant paid for, in the [Newspaper 2], is a very significant factor. It indicates to me that the applicant has attempted to manufacture a claim for protection, that he has done so with some considerable foresight and cunning. This leads me, in this case, and taking into account my further credibility concerns below, to find that the applicant is not a witness of truth and that none of his claims about what he says he has done or happened to him have in fact happened. Specifically, it leads me to find that he has not genuinely converted to the Shia sect, and has not been harmed for that or any reason.

29. I further find that these newspapers were not National, but the Lahore editions, and therefore would have had a smaller circulation than a national publication, and the notices were not published in other editions such as the Islamabad edition. I find also that these advertisements were placed in the newspapers a considerable time ago. 

30. The submission raised the point that the information had been requested under FOI prior to the hearing. As I had explained at the hearing, this information was not on the Tribunal file until after the hearing owing to an oversight on my part – the information from the post had not at the time of the FOI been placed on the file. I apologised at the hearing for this oversight. The submission goes further, in claiming that the DFAT report has not been fully and adequately conveyed to the applicant as it is missing one of its attachments. I do not accept this argument – the email attachments to the submission were quoted in the DFAT report extensively. The information, as far as it was relevant and in the proper context, was given to the applicant at hearing under s.424AA. Further, after the hearing, a copy of the DFAT report, with the extensive and relevant quoting of the emails, was sent to the applicant. I do not accept that the Tribunal has not fully and adequately conveyed the adverse information to the applicant. I have had regard to the case of Sandhu & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 1678, and I do not consider the situation here analogous to that one – the information relied upon in that case under s.359AA was factually more complex. I also do not accept the claim that as the applicant and representative have not been provided with the emails from either newspaper the applicant has been ‘unable to provide specific responses to the alleged information received by DAFT.’ Given that the emails were extensively and as far as relevant quoted in the DFAT report, and that the substance of this information was put to the applicant at hearing, I do not accept that the applicant has been disadvantaged or unable to respond to the adverse information in any way.

    The Affidavits

1. In support of his claims, the applicant presented an affidavit dated [in] November 2012 to the Department (Df. 153). When we discussed his conversion we discussed the letter from [Leader A] (Df.152, 151). He then said that he got his declaration from his side for the petition, which he submitted in the court, he made that declaration because of his petition, it was a declaration from the court and his family were disturbing him. Later I showed him the affidavit of [November] 2012, the original of this document, (Df.150) and he said this was his petition, he did that. He said this was against the SHO and brothers, he got this petition for the court. He claimed that this affidavit was for the purposes of making the petition to the Court on [on a date in] March 2013 and discussed in detail how the affidavit had been prepared on or around [that date in] March 2013. When I asked him then why the affidavit was dated the date of his conversion, [a date in] November 2012, he said that he showed the letter from [Leader A] so maybe the person drafting the affidavit made a mistake with the date. After a break the applicant said that this affidavit was demanded by [Leader A], he was confused as he used the same affidavit for the petition, this was for [Leader A’s] report to show that he did not convert the applicant but it was of his own free will. I noted that he had not given me this explanation when I raised the date initially. He said he had just read it carefully. I read to him the detailed conversation we had had earlier, in which he had not mentioned this explanation. He said he had just remembered. He said there should be two documents, and he can look for this other one as well. I noted to him that he had not mentioned that [Leader A] had required this document when he was converting when we had earlier discussed his conversion, he had only mentioned the letter provided by [Leader A].

2. After the hearing the applicant then provided a further affidavit. I am concerned by the late production of the affidavit dated [in] March 2013 along with the police report receipt only after the first hearing and after concerns were raised, on 13 March 2015, with no explanation as to where the applicant obtained these documents or why they had not been provided earlier. There is an allusion in the submission to difficulty in obtaining records from Pakistan but no explanation. A further document, the court petition, is then presented for the first time along with the translations of these other documents on 27 March 2015.

3. It is claimed in the submission of 13 March 2015 that there are two possible reasons why the applicant did the affidavit of [a date in] November 2012; as protection for [Leader A], and so that the applicant did not have to pay Zakat. If the first of these is true, there is no reason for the applicant to hold a copy of this document – he has not claimed to have obtained this from [Leader A], and if he comes from a family aligned with Jamaat Ahle Sunnah, and as he claimed that he kept his conversion on his visit of December 2012 quiet, as I noted to him at the hearing, it seems implausible that he would retain a document which indicated his change of sect which could potentially place him in danger of his family. The second reason I also find implausible – the claim is that he needed it to provide evidence of his Shia faith to his bank – if he did indeed need evidence, then I do not understand why the letter from [Leader A] would not have been sufficient. A further concern is that the wording of the [November] 2012 affidavit states that the applicant’s family belongs to Jamaat Ahle Sunnat. If this affidavit was produced for either of the reasons claimed, I can see no reason why the applicant would need to include this information for either [Leader A] or his bank.

4. I have considered the explanations given, the timing of the production of documents, and the content of those documents. I do not accept the applicant’s claims for the reasons above. I find that these documents are not genuine – they may be genuine affidavits, but I find that the information they contain, of the applicant’s conversion, is not genuine.

5. This leads me to have concerns with the applicant’s credibility.

6. Further, when I consider my concerns with these documents with the country information on the ease with which fraudulent, or bogus documents produced by the appropriate person or authority but containing fraudulent or untrue information, can be produced in Pakistan (as set out in the attachment, and as raised and discussed with the applicant at hearing), it leads me to find that some or all of the other documents provided may be fraudulent or bogus, and to place no weight on any of the documents provided.

7. It has been put forward that the general concerns about document fraud in Pakistan raised by the delegate are simply unacceptable. I agree. However, in this instance I have significant and clear concerns with specific documents provided by the applicant. I have had regard to their content, the reasons claimed for the applicant creating or getting them, the plausibility of the explanations, and have made the findings above. Given these findings about specific documents provided by the applicant, and given my findings above that he has paid for and organised the notices of disinheritance, and given the country information on document fraud, on these bases I find that I can place no weight on any of the documents provided.

8. Given my credibility findings above, I find the applicant is not a witness of truth, and that I cannot believe or trust any evidence or submission or claim that he has made. I further find that I can place no weight on any documents provided.

   Country information

9. At hearing the above issues and concerns were raised with the applicant. Country information in relation to the situation for Shias in Pakistan, and more specifically in Punjab province, was discussed with the applicant, as was country information in relation to document fraud. At hearing we also discussed the role and capabilities of Jamat Ahle Sunnat. In discussing these matters and assessing the claims of the applicant I have had regard to the relevant policy guidelines. I have had regard to country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. At hearing I discussed with the applicant the assessment of the situation in Pakistan for Shia covered in the DFAT Country Information Report - Pakistan published on 29 November 2013 and the DFAT thematic report on Shias published on 18 December 2013. These reports have been superseded by the DFAT Country Information Report - Pakistan published on 15 January 2016 and the DFAT thematic report on Shias published on 15 January 2016. Because I have made the findings I have made above and below, I do not consider that any differences in the assessments and information between these earlier and most recent reports is necessary to put to the applicant, as this information has not formed any part of the basis of my decision, and is therefore not relevant to the decision under consideration. I have had regard to the country information provided in the various submissions, as well as the country information referred to in my decision and the Attachment. 

   Findings on the applicant’s claims

10. On the basis of my credibility findings above, I do not accept that the applicant has been disowned or had any falling out with his family, or that they threw him out of the house, on the basis of the evidence above and my findings on that evidence which leads me to find that he and his family have acted in concert to produce documents and claims to seek protection based around his false claim to have converted to the Shia sect. I do not accept that his family were or are particularly strict. I do not accept that his family or anyone he associates with are members, active in, or associated in any way with Jamat Ahle Sunnat or any other religious group, and I note that his claims about his families association with this group changed over the course of the hearing. I do not accept that he converted, genuinely or otherwise, to the Shia sect on [a date in] November 2012. I do not accept that the applicant has a genuine interest in the Shia sect or that he started learning about this in 2003 during his time at [company]. I do not accept that the applicant attended any Majalis, Jaloos, spoke with any [Leader] or anyone else of the Shia faith or had any contact with Shia’s or went to any Shia organisations or buildings in Pakistan in 2012, 2013 or at any time. I do not accept that members of Jamat Ahle Sunnat or anyone else took pictures of him when he was attending Shia Majalis and Jaloos and showed his family and friends. I make this finding not only on my general credibility findings but also because this claim is completely implausible; I do not accept that a group such as Jamat Ahle Sunnat or any other Shia group would have the capacity or inclination to take close up pictures of the applicant or anyone else participating in these ceremonies, and even if this were the case, this aspect of his claim is inconsistent with his later claim that his parents published the notices of disinheritance in the newspapers to alert Jamat Ahle Sunnat to his conversion, as Jamat Ahle Sunnat were not aware of his conversion. I do not accept that members of Jamat Ahle Sunnat came to his house with his brother and cousin to attempt to convert him back to the Sunni faith, and threatened to kill him. I do not accept that the police threatened him with any harm. I do not accept that the publishing of the notices of disownment, which I have found the applicant was complicit in, were published with the intent to harm the applicant in any way. I do not accept that the applicant was approached and stopped by four men on motorbikes, at gunpoint, who warned him that he was in real danger and gave him two days to convert back. I do not accept that anyone was looking for the applicant.

11. On the basis of my credibility findings and my findings on his documents, I do not accept that the applicant has made any complaints to the police, lodged a complaint, or had any contact with the police, as I do not accept his testimony and claims about this and find that the documents produced have been produced fraudulently. I do not accept that he took a petition to court against the SHO, his brother and cousin, or that he then got a court order. I do not accept that the applicant was given a notice of conversion to the Shia sect by [Leader A].

12. I find that the applicant has taken the actions he has taken, engaged in behaviours, and gained the fraudulent documents he has for the sole purpose of making his claim for protection and in an attempt to remain in Australia. I note and have had regard, as the delegate did, to the fact that the applicant lodged his claim for protection four days before his student visa was to cease. I do not accept that this was coincidental, but find that the applicant, aware that his visa was to cease, and not having, as he stated at the hearing, a pathway to a temporary skilled visa, decided to manufacture claims for protection in an attempt to remain in Australia.

13. I accept that the applicant was born into a Sunni family and raised as a Sunni. On the evidence from the editor I accept that the notice of disownment, with his photograph was published in the Lahore edition of the [Newspaper 2] [in] March 2013 and on the evidence from the executive director a notice of disownment, without photograph, was published in [Newspaper 1] [in] March 2013.

14. On the evidence of the photographs, CDs and DVDs, the letter from his Australian employer and the statutory declarations from his [friend] I accept that the applicant has attended Muharram celebrations and other Shia events at the [community organisation] in at least 2010, 2013 and 2014, and has paid membership of the [community organisation] for two years. However, on the basis of my credibility findings, and my findings above, I find that the applicant is not a genuine convert to the Shia sect, and has no interest in the Shia sect outside his attempt to gain protection on this basis. As I indicated to the applicant at hearing, having made my findings above, I find that the applicant has engaged in these activities of Muharram celebrations, attending Shia events, becoming a member of the [community organisation], and, as [his friend] states in his statutory declaration, the applicant has also discussed issues and prayers of the Shia sect, been told about books and websites, educate himself, all for the sole purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee. Accordingly, I disregard this conduct engaged in by him in Australia; s.91R(3). Whilst I accept that [his friend] has produced his statutory declaration in good faith, I find that this is because the applicant has misrepresented his intentions, and on this basis I give no weight to the evidence of [his friend] that the applicant has converted, genuinely or otherwise, to the Shia sect whilst he was in Pakistan.

    Will the applicant suffer persecution on return?

15. On the basis of my findings above, I have found that the applicant is not a convert, genuine or otherwise, to the Shia sect, and that he has engaged in Shia religious activities and events solely for the purpose of strengthening his claims to protection. On this basis, I find that if the applicant returns to Sahiwal in Pakistan, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, he will not engage in any of these activities, will not attend Majalis and Jaloos, Muharram events or any other Shia events, will not attend Shia places of worship or organisations, or have contact with Shia. Whilst I accept that the notices of disinheritance were published in the Lahore newspapers, and that there is a risk, although I assess this as slight, given that I cannot rely on any other claims or evidence from the applicant, that he might at that time have been presumed to have converted to Shiism. However, these were published in March 2013, almost three years ago, the evidence is that there were only these notices published, only one of which had his photograph. Significantly, I note that the South Asian Terrorism Portal assessment of sectarian violence in Punjab state from 2009 until 2015 does not indicate that any sectarian violence has occurred in Sahiwal.[1]

    [1]

16. I accept that the applicant has attended Shia events in Australia. I have found he has not attended any Shia events in Pakistan. I do not accept that he faces any risk of harm from attending Shia events in Australia were he to return to Sahiwal, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

17. I have had regard to the articles and reports provided in the various submissions, but these refer to Shia, often professionals, or those attending Shia events in Pakistan. As I have found that the applicant will not attend Shia events in Pakistan, given there is no evidence he will be identified as a Shia professional on return, given the long period of time since the notices were published in the papers, and the fact that these were only published once in two local, not national newspapers, only one of which carried a photograph, and given the information from the SATP that there have been no sectarian attacks in Sahiwal since at least 2009, I do not accept that he will face any risk of harm on this basis.

18. These findings lead me to make certain conclusions. I find that even were the applicant to be imputed with being a Shia convert on the basis of the notices in the newspapers, this was such a long time ago that I assess the risk of him being recognised and imputed with being a Shia convert by Jamat Ahle Sunnat or anyone else if he were to return now or in the reasonably foreseeable future to be remote and far-fetched. I find that on the basis of all the information before me there is no real chance of the applicant being harmed by his family, the police, Jamat Ahle Sunnat, or anyone else for reasons of his actual or imputed religion, being a Shia convert, or for any other Convention reason, on return to Sahiwal, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Will the applicant suffer significant harm on return?

19. I note that, above, I have found that the applicant has deliberately engaged in conduct in Australia for the purpose of creating or strengthening his claim for protection. I note that s.91R(3) does not apply to my assessment of s.36(2)(aa). I have assessed his claims with this in mind.

20. In considering whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), I have considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to his receiving country, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.  He has not made any claims other than the claims above to fear harm on return. I have considered the claims and conduct I do accept. I note that he has attended Shia religious activities and events in Australia, and as above I have found he has not attended such events in Pakistan. I find that there is no risk of harm that will come to the applicant on the basis that he has historically attended Shia events in Australia but, as I have found above, will not do so on return to Pakistan. On the basis of the evidence and findings above I find that there is not a real risk of the applicant being significantly harmed in Sahiwal, for any of the reasons claimed or for any other reason, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Pakistan. 

    Conclusions

21. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

22. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

23. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

24. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    Sean Baker
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENTS

25. Further country information which formed the basis for discussion and raising of issues with the applicant

    Document fraud in Pakistan

    Information located states that general document fraud is prevalent in Pakistan with a range of false documents available in Pakistan, including passports, Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC), First Information Reports (FIRs), degree certificates, birth and death certificates, financial documents and permanent residence certificates. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in its advice of August 2009 noted that ‘the incidence of fraudulent documentation in Pakistan is high’.[2]

    [2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2009, CIS Request No. PAK 9773: Birth and death certificates; conditions in the Swat Valley, 18 August <CISNET Pakistan CX231791>

    Despite claims from NADRA that their secure database and issuance procedures make procuring an invalid CNIC very difficult, fake CNICs are reportedly widespread in Pakistan. It is not illegal to obtain a valid, duplicate CNIC to replace a lost or misplaced card, but it is illegal for a citizen of Pakistan to possess and use two CNICs, whether they have identical or different personal particulars.[3] Further information on the circulation of fake CNIC cards can be found in Country Advice PAK40437 dated May 2012.

    [3] Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada 2010, PAK103606.FE – Pakistan: Fraudulent Documents (2008-2010), 24 November < Accessed 6 January 2011; Ghumman, K. 2011, ‘PAC to take up issue of fictitious ID cards today’, Dawn, 19 March < Accessed 31 May 2012 <CISNET Pakistan CX315174>;‘DUP Cards Processing’ n.d., NADRA website < Accessed 29 May 2012 <CISNET Pakistan  CIS26473>

    The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRBC) in November 2010 noted media reports of cases concerning fraudulent documents in Pakistan between 2008 and 2010 and noted a 2010 Daily Times report stating that that ‘“fake passports are widely available” in Pakistan’.[4] These reports from the IRBC are also noted in the UK Home Office’s Country of Origin Information Report on Pakistan dated August 2013.[5]

    [4] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2010, Fraudulent documents (2008-2010), 24 November <CISNET Pakistan  CX265740>

    [5] UK Home Office 2013, Pakistan: Country of Origin Information Report, 9 August, p.290 < Accessed 28 October 2013

    RRT Research Response PAK36856 of June 2010 provides information regarding the prevalence of document fraud in Pakistan, particularly fraudulent educational, travel and identity documents for the purposes of visa fraud. The response notes an April 2009 report in The Sunday Telegraph that reported on its investigation into the availability of fraudulent documents in Pakistan, carried out in Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Peshawar. The report refers to ‘a village near Islamabad known to have a cottage industry in fake documents”. The report notes that: “[forged degree] certificates, fake income tax returns and bogus payslips were on sale in Pakistan yesterday”. The report also states: ‘[s]uch documents are widely available under the counter from immigration consultants all over Pakistan’.[6]

    [6] Meo, N. & Khan, E. 2009, ‘Pounds 100 fakes helping terrorists into UK’, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 April < Accessed 11 June 2010 <CISNET Pakistan CIS26478>

    DFAT also provided advice in February 2008 on the prevalence of document fraud with regards to FIRs and official identification cards and diplomatic identification cards as follows:

    R.2. FIRs are not difficult documents to fraudulently produce. They are standard forms which can be completed by hand (the use of a computer or typewriter is not necessary). Other documents, such as official identification cards and diplomatic identification cards are unsophisticated and would be just as easy to copy. A lack of published information on the occurrence and prevalence of fraudulent documentation makes it difficult to determine whether it is increasing or decreasing, however we have seen no information to suggest the government is making a concerted effort to identify and address the problem.[7]

    [7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade  2008, RRT Information Request: PAK32903- First Information Reports/ First Incident Reports(FIRs), 25 February <CISNET Pakistan CX194747>

    Ahl-e-Sunnat-Wal Jamaat

    Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) is a pro-Taliban, anti-Shi'ite militant group based in central Punjab. [8] Since Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan was banned in 2002 during former president Pervez Musharraf's government, Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat (ASWJ) is now the current name of the militant group.[9]

    [8] ‘Factbox – Major Militant groups in Pakistan’, 2010, Reuters, 1 July - Accessed 8 February 2012.

    [9] Ahmed, N. 2011, ‘Sectarian politics: Police scramble to defuse two groups planning Numaish sit-in’, The Express Tribune, 2 December - Accessed 8 February 2012.

    It was formed with an anti-Shia agenda, representing a Pakistani military and Saudi-sponsored campaign against what they perceived as an Iran-friendly Shia minority.[10] SSP is also a religiously-motivated terrorist organization that believes Pakistan's Shia population possesses too much power and influence and that Pakistan should be governed as a Sunni state.[11]

    [10] International Crisis Group (ICG) 2011, Islamic parties in Pakistan, 12 December, Asia Report N°216, p 23 - Accessed 6 February 2012.

    [11] ‘Terrorist Organization Profile: Sipah-e-Sahaba (SSP)’, (undated), National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism – Accessed 7 February 2012.

    SSP was founded by a Sunni cleric - Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi - in the 1980s with a desire for Pakistan to be officially declared a Sunni Muslim state. Maulana Jhangvi was assassinated in a suspected sectarian attack in 1990, which led to the formation of a breakaway and more radical Jhangvi group which was banned in 2001. SSP was then led by another cleric, Maulana Azam Tariq, who was subsequently detained by the authorities in October 2001 at the height of violent protests by hardline Islamic groups in support of Afghanistan's Taliban regime.[12] SSP was then banned in 2002.[13]

    [12] ‘Pakistan’s militant Islamic groups’, 2002, BBC, 13 January - Accessed 8 February 2012.

    [13] ‘Factbox – Major Militant groups in Pakistan’, 2010, Reuters, 1 July - Accessed 8 February 2012.

    A report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, on 1 April 1999 provided the following information on the funding of SSP:

    Government officials claim that "Indian and Iraqi intelligence agencies" give the SSP large sums of money and supply them with considerable arms. According to free-lance reporter Anthony Davis, the SSP (and the JUI) both received "moral and financial support" from Saudi Arabia who was concerned with countering Iran's support of the Shi'is. [14]

    [14] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 1999, PAK31672.E - Pakistan: The (Anjuman) Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP, ASSP), including its leaders and members, mandate, organizational structure, activities, relationship with other groups, and whether the SSP units in Kamalpur Alam and Hazro town, District Attock, Punjab engaged in acts of violence, particularly in September 1994, 1 April - Accessed 6 February 2012.

    Moreover, an undated profile of SSP from the South Asia Terrorism Portal provided the following information on the group:

    Earlier termed Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba, the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) is a Sunni sectarian outfit that has been alleged to be involved in terrorist violence, primarily targeted against the minority Shia community in Pakistan.

    Towns like Sargodha, Bahawalpur, Jhang, Multan and Muzaffargarh are the SSP strongholds. The dynamic leadership of Haq Nawaz Jhangvi is reported to have popularised an anti-Shia campaign in their backyard, southern and western areas of Punjab.

    The SSP has influence in all the four provinces of Pakistan and is considered to be the most powerful extremist group in the country. It has also succeeded in creating a political vote bank in the Punjab and North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The SSP has reportedly 500 offices and branches in all 34 districts of Punjab. It is also reported to have approximately 100 000 registered workers in Pakistan and 17 branches in foreign countries including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Canada and England.[15]

    [15] ‘Sipah-e-Sahaba, Terrorist Group of  Pakistan’, (undated), South Asia Terrorism Portal - Accessed 7 February 2012.

    A selection of commentary and reports on the activities of SSP are captured in the extracts below.

    On 1 March 1995, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reported:

    This organization [SSP] was blamed for the massacre of 22 Shia Muslim worshippers that took place in two mosques in Karachi in February 1995.[16]

    [16] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 1995, PAK20211.E - Pakistan: Recent information on the Sipah-i-Sahaba Sunni Muslim group, its goals, activities, leaders and treatment of its members by the authorities, 1 March  - Accessed 6 February 2012.

    On 1 April 1999, another report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada stated:

    The SSP was the first organization to begin distributing pamphlets that incited religious hatred and yet, in its nine years of publication, none of its members have been tried or charged under this offence, with the exception of three activists caught in Multan in early June 1994 by police for distributing offensive literature. In 1994 the SSP alone distributed more than a dozen booklets and pamphlets in which they reproduced what they deemed objectionable from Shi'a history books and urged the public to "get rid of these 'blasphemers'".[17]

    [17] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 1999, PAK31672.E - Pakistan: The (Anjuman) Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP, ASSP), including its leaders and members, mandate, organizational structure, activities, relationship with other groups, and whether the SSP units in Kamalpur Alam and Hazro town, District Attock, Punjab engaged in acts of violence, particularly in September 1994, 1 April - Accessed 6 February 2012.

    On 10 July 2003, Asia Times reported:

    In the past, the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), a Sunni extremist organization demanding the declaration of Pakistan as a Sunni state and of the Shi'ites as non-Muslims, had carried out the massacres of a large number of Shi'ites, including the educated leaders of their community, in the Pakistani Punjab, the NWFP and Karachi, but they had not indulged in any violent activities in Balochistan.[18]

    [18] Raman, B. 2003, ‘Murder and machination in Pakistan’s backyard’, Asia Times, 10 July - Accessed 8 February 2012.

    On May 2010, a report by Reuters stated:

    The group was banned in 2002, but officials say its members were suspected of involvement in attacks in the province, including the burning to death of eight Christians on suspicions of blasphemy last year.[19]

    [19] ‘Factbox – Major militant groups in Pakistan’, 2010, Reuters, 30 May - Accessed 7 February 2012.

    On September 2010, the South Asia Terrorism Portal noted:

    The LeJ and the SSP remain the principal organisations responsible for the rise of sectarian strife in the country. Though both these outfits maintain that they are not organisationally linked, they share the same origins, sectarian belief system and worldview. Their charter of demands includes turning Pakistan into a Sunni State, and both draw their cadres from the same madrassas (seminaries) and social milieu.[20]

    [20] ‘Sectarian Torments’, 2010, South Asia Terrorism Portal, 6 September - Accessed 7 February 2012.

    On 12 December 2011, the International Crisis Group reported:

    Radical clerics and extremist outfits such as the Sipah-e-Sahaba have exploited blasphemy cases to promote their sectarian agenda, frequently appearing at hearings to pressure judges into pronouncing guilty verdicts.[21]

    [21] International Crisis Group (ICG) 2011, Islamic parties in Pakistan, 12 December, Asia Report N°216, p 21 - Accessed 6 February 2012.