1405643 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3752

1405643 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3752 (30 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1405643

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Afghanistan

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:30 November 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act..

Statement made on 30 November 2015 at 9:48am

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 is a national of Afghanistan, a Sunni Muslim and of Pashtun ethnicity. He is [age] years old. He arrived in Australia by boat [in] July 2012. He applied for the visa [in] November 2012, claiming, essentially, that he fears being killed by the Taliban.

3. The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention in Afghanistan and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Afghanistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Claims before the Department

4. In a statutory declaration attached to his application for a protection visa the applicant claimed that he lived in the village in Paktia, located between [Village 1 and another village], near the border of Pakistan. In November 2010 his father, who is one of the heads of the village, was abducted by the Taliban on his way to the mosque. Around six months later his father escaped from the Taliban and returned home.

5. In May 2011, the head of [Village 1] called the applicant’s father to inform him that they had received warning letters from the Taliban demanding that they leave the area. Around a week later, a car bomb explosion on the main resulted in a number of casualties among the [people]. On the same day, the applicant and [a number of] others from his village went to see [Mr A], [an official] to report what had happened. [Mr A] told them that they should guard the road and paid them a salary. They were told to not engage in any conflict with the Taliban but to immediately report Taliban activity to [Mr A].

6. The applicant and his friends began patrolling the roads in shifts – [number] at night and [number] during the day. They patrolled the road for around 2 months and one morning they discovered the bodies of the 5 people who were patrolling at night. They had been killed by the Taliban. They notified [Mr A], who came to inspect the scene. Subsequently, he called a meeting of the villagers at the army base in [Village 1] and offered 5 more people to bolster security.

7. Three days later, the applicant’s father found a warning letter from the Taliban next to their front door saying that they had killed 5 of the people who had reported them to the [official] and that the remaining 5 will also die.

8. Three days later, the applicant left Afghanistan for Pakistan. He was later joined by the rest of his family except his father.

   Entry Interview

9. Following his arrival by boat, the applicant was interviewed (entry interview) by the department [in] August 2012. The information the applicant provided in connection with the interview is contained in a form (the entry form) signed by the applicant (see folios 70-77 of the departmental file). The interview was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.

10. At the entry interview the applicant stated that his father was [an official] in [a village]. About two years ago, his father set up a committee with the assistance of the district officer and [an official], consisting of [number] people, including the applicant. Their job was to secure the road that runs through their village to the Pakistani border. As the road is used for foreigners, they did not want anyone to plant a roadside bomb. The guarding duties were carried in two shifts: [number] people guarded the road at night and [number] at daytime. They were all paid a salary by the [official]. His father didn't want anything to happen in his area. One night his father did not return home. The applicant went to [Village 1] to report that his father is missing. His father ‘was lost for one year (the second year of the committee) and then he came back’. The Taliban had taken him to their centre in [location] in [another] Province, because he was responsible for the committee. When his father came back he was in a very bad shape. He had been beaten a lot. He did not leave the house after coming back. One night the Taliban shot and killed 3 of [the] people guarding the road. After the applicant returned to his house he found some letters next to the gate. The letters are still in his village and he will try to get a copy. The letters said the Taliban were after the [people] who were members of the committee, as well as their leader, the applicant’s father. The applicant’s father then arranged for the applicant to leave Afghanistan. In Pakistan the applicant talked to an agent who arranged his trip to Australia. It took 3 to 4 days and then his uncle brought him to Peshawar and they talked to an agent.

    Protection Visa Interview

11. The applicant was interviewed by a delegate of the Minister [in] October 2013. Where relevant the applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate is discussed below.

12. The delegate refused to grant the visa [in] March 2014. The delegate did not find the applicant to be a credible witness. He did not accept the applicant’s account of his past experiences, as well as his claims in relation to the Taliban.

    Review Application

13. The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision.

14. The applicant’s representative provided the Tribunal with a submission dated 26 May 2015 in relation to the facts of the case and the applicable law. The submission provided comments on the delegate’s decision, the nature of the harm likely to be experienced by the applicant and whether the applicant’s fear is well-founded. The submission also addressed the general human rights situation in Afghanistan; risks within the Patakia Province/Eastern Afghanistan; risks to persons who are actual or perceived supporters of the Afghan government; the situation of returnees; availability of state protection; relocation and complementary protection. The submission referred to a number of sources, including the 2011 report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and on the achievements of technical assistance in the field of human rights; a September 2014 Al Jazeera report in relation to a Taliban attack on Patakia; the February 2015 UK Home Office’s Country Information and Guidance Afghanistan in relation to persons supporting or perceived to be supporting the government or the international forces; the August 2013 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan; an August 2015 CORI report in relation to Pashtuns; an August 2014 UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report relating to security in Afghanistan; 2011 US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights in relation to Afghanistan; Human Rights Watch 2012 World Report; UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection; a 2012 Danish Refugee Council in relation to Afghan returnees.

    The Hearing

15. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 May 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Pashto and English languages.

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

    The Relevant Law

17. 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.

18. 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).

19. 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.

20. 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’).

21. 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal has had regard to the DFAT Country Report - Afghanistan (published on 26 March 2014); DFAT Country Report - Afghanistan (published 18 September 2015); and the DFAT Thematic Report - Condition in Kabul (published on 18 September 2015).

    Analysis, Reasons and Findings

22. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration.

    Credibility and Fear of Taliban

23. The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible and truthful witness. In reaching this view, the Tribunal has had regard to the numerous inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence throughout the process and other reasons detailed below.

24. First, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his father’s experiences following his alleged escape from the Taliban. At his entry interview, the applicant stated that after his father escaped the Taliban and returned home, he was in a bad shape and would not leave the house. However, at his protection interview, the applicant stated that after his father escaped the Taliban, he was very active as a leader in the village. He was also active with the patrol committee. He stated that his father remained active until he received a threatening letter from Taliban, at which point he stayed at home. The applicant also stated that his father was in hiding because he moved from house to house in order to avoid the Taliban. At the hearting the applicant provided a different account of his father’s experiences after his claimed escape. The applicant stated at the hearing that after his claimed escape from the Taliban, the applicant’s father was at home and did not leave the house. The applicant’s oral evidence at the entry and the protection interviews were put to him at the hearing under s.424AA. He stated that when his father returned home, he was in a bad shape and whenever he saw him he was at home. He was frightened and scared for his safety so he was not involved in community work. His father might have left the house sometimes, but as far as the applicant knew his father was at home. His father was the [an official] of the village. As his father’s son, he was involved in the activities involving ‘protection work’. The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s explanations for the inconsistencies in his evidence satisfactory and is unable to reconcile the discrepancies in his account. The applicant’s evidence casts doubt on the veracity of his claims.

25. Secondly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to when the committee was allegedly established and under what circumstances. In the statutory declaration provided in support of his protection visa application, the applicant stated that the patrol committee was established one week after his father’s alleged escape from the Taliban and his return to the village. However, in his entry and protection interviews he stated that his father had been kidnapped because of his involvement or his role in the patrol committee. He also stated that at the time of his father’s abduction, the committee was already active. At the hearing, the applicant provided a different account, stating that at the time his father was abducted there were only discussions about the committee, but the committee had not yet been established. The applicant’s oral evidence to the department was put to him under s.424AA. He responded that at the entry interview he could not concentrate because of the long journey he had completed. He stated that at the time of his father’s abduction, there was a discussion about the committee and informants reported his father. His father was the head of the village, but he was very scared and fearful for his life, so he asked the applicant to join the committee. This explanation does not address the problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence at his protection interview. The applicant did not offer a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies in his evidence and the Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s evidence to be reliable.

26. Furthermore, in his application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that the committee was formed after he witnessed a car bomb explosion which resulted in many casualties amongst the people of his tribe. He stated that the explosion occurred one week after his father escaped the Taliban and returned to the village in May 2011. Subsequently, the applicant and [a number of] others went to see the [official], [Mr A], who offered the applicant and his colleagues [number] Afghanis to patrol the roads. The applicant stated that he performed these duties for a period of two months. At his protection visa interview, however, the applicant stated that before his abduction, his father had already met with [Mr A] and together they had organised the committee. The applicant also stated at his protection interview that he had never met [Mr A]. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided a different account, stating that his father, as well as other leaders in the village, went to see the [official] after the applicant’s father’s abduction in order to formally establish the committee. He further stated that he has met [Mr A] once only when he went to meet with the district officials in [Village 1].

27. The applicant’s evidence at his protection interview was put to him under s.424AA of the Act. The applicant responded that as part of the ongoing discussions the village leaders went to see the [official]. They had a lot of issues to discuss. One person stood up and said that they need a committee to protect the people. Since the applicant’s father was loyal to the community, the [official] said ‘if you are happy to do this, then I am happy to contribute [number] Afghani’. After these discussions, the Taliban were informed by an informant and his father was abducted. The applicant reported the matter but they received no help. It took six months for his father to escape. His father told the community that he could not be active because he was scared. However, he could not go back on his word ‘because of honour’ and he asked the applicant to step in.

28. The applicant’s explanations at the hearing further contradict his earlier evidence and casts considerable doubt on the veracity of his claims. 

29. Thirdly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his observations or experiences when serving on the committee.  At the entry interview, the applicant told the department that once the committee was established, the patrol was divided into day and night shifts. During one of his shifts, the applicant discovered that three people from the night shift had been killed. At his protection interview and at the hearing, the applicant claimed that five people had been killed. The applicant’s evidence at the entry interview is also inconsistent with his subsequent evidence that he had met [Mr A] once only when he went to meet with the district officials in [Village 1]. When this information was put to him under s.424AA, the applicant stated that five people had been shot dead and that he had asked the department to rectify this error. He also stated that after the incident, [Mr A] came to [Village 1] district and they discussed the issue with him. The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s explanations for the inconsistencies in his evidence persuasive. The shift and changes in the applicant’s account of events casts serious doubt on the veracity of his evidence.

30. Fourthly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his family’s circumstances following his departure from Afghanistan. In his written statement, the applicant stated that after he left for Pakistan, the rest of his family joined him except for his father. At the protection interview he said that he did not know where his family were and that he was later told by his uncle that his family had departed Afghanistan for Pakistan a week after his departure, but his father had stayed behind. In her submission of 26 May 2015, the applicant’s representative stated that the applicant wanted to clarify where his parents are currently located. She went on to state that the applicant has instructed that ‘at the time, some people were telling him his family was in Afghanistan and others were telling him that they were in Pakistan”. He had told the delegate that he was not sure where his parents were. He has since contacted his family who have told him that they are in Pakistan. At the hearing, the applicant said that he did not know when his family had moved to Pakistan and that all members of his family, including his father, had moved to Pakistan. He only found out this information a year after he came to Australia and following his interview when he was able to contact his family. The information the applicant had provided to the delegate orally was put to him unders.42AA. The applicant responded that nobody was telling him the truth and later when one of his friends took the phone to his mother, his mother told him that they had moved to Pakistan. The Tribunal finds these explanations unsatisfactory. If the applicant had only found out after the interview that his family had moved to Pakistan, it is unclear on what basis he had told the delegate that his family had departed Afghanistan for Pakistan a week after his departure and that his father had stayed behind.

1. For all the above reasons, the Tribunal finds the applicant not to be a credible witness. His evidence shows a propensity to tailor evidence in a manner which achieves his own purpose. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept that the applicant’s account of his father’s abduction and treatment at the hands if the Taliban. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father or other members of his family had received threatening letters from the Taliban. The Tribunal does not accept that anyone else in the applicant’s village had received warning letters demanding that the applicant’s family leave the area. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had any discussions with the [official] in relation to the establishment of a patrol to guard the roads around his village. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and his friends had organised patrolling of roads or that he had in fact patrolled the roads around his village for two months. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had departed Afghanistan as a reaction to a letter from the Taliban to his father, threatening to kill members of the patrol committee. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not been truthful about his family’s circumstances and their whereabouts. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and his family had sided with the local authorities against the Taliban or that he and members of his family were perceived to be supporters of the government. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or any member of his family has suffered harm in Afghanistan for the reason of his father’s or his own involvement with any committee or activity that would have been construed as pro-government by the Taliban or other insurgent groups. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in his home area for reasons related to arising from his claimed involvement with or connection to any committee or activity that would have been construed as pro-government by the Taliban or other insurgent groups.

   The Security Situation, General Violence and Ethnicity

2. The Tribunal accepts that the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in the last two years, resulting in significant civilian casualties.[1] According to DFAT, the significant rise in casualties in 2014 reflects an increase in the frequency and intensity of ground engagements across Afghanistan. The insurgent forces contest many areas of the country. No part of the country can be considered free from conflict-related violence and the situation remains fluid.[2] The security situation is better in areas where government forces maintain strong control, such as major urban areas like Kabul, but attacks remain a common occurrence even in these areas. Overall, the government’s control is weaker in contested areas, particularly in the south and east of Afghanistan, including Paktia.[3]

   [1] DFAT, Country Report – Afghanistan,18 September 2015.

   [2] Ibid

   [3] UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance Afghanistan: persons supporting or perceived to support the government and/or international forces, February 2015,

3. The population of Afghanistan is estimated to be approximately 32 million people.[4]  Pashtuns make up 42 per cent of this population.[5] The Afghan Constitution prohibits discrimination between Afghan citizens.[6] There is no evidence of any official policy of discrimination by the government on the basis of ethnicity, ethnic groups can participate in elections and political life and ethnic minorities have their own media outlets, political parties and politically active representatives.[7] However, ethnic, tribal and family affiliations are important factors in almost every aspect of life in Afghanistan.[8] Accordingly, Afghans tend to live in areas where their ethnic group constitutes the local majority.[9]  There has been no large-scale ethnic violence since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 although ethnic tensions exist at a local level and can result in sporadic violence.[10] According to DFAT, as at September 2015, no particular ethnic group is systematically targeted solely on the basis of ethnicity.[11]  It is individuals working for, supporting or associated with the government or the international community who are at high risk of violence committed by anti-government elements.[12]

   [4] DFAT, n1, above.

   [5] Ibid.

   [6] Ibid.

   [7] Ibid.

   [8] Ibid.

   [9] Ibid; and DFAT, Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 26 March 2014.

   [10] DFAT, n1, above. 

   [11] Ibid.

   [12] Ibid and DFAT, n9, above. 

4. While the Tribunal accepts that Paktia is a volatile area in Afghanistan and that insurgent attacks have caused civilian casualties, the number of casualties has to be considered in the context of the overall population.[13]. The conflict and the civilian casualties which result from it occur in a number of areas of Afghanistan and not just one location.  There was no persuasive evidence in the applicant’s own claims or in the independent country information before the Tribunal to suggest that general violence in the applicant’s home area is so high as to place the applicant at a real risk of suffering serious harm.

   [13] In 2014, those casualties were approximately 10,600 out of a population of approximately 32 million people (DFAT, n1, above).

5. The applicant did not claim to fear harm on the basis of his ethnicity and Sunni faith and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of being seriously harmed for the reason of his Pashtun ethnicity and religion in Afghanistan. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s chance of facing serious harm in the context of the prevailing security situation in Afghanistan is remote.

6. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk of the applicant facing significant harm in Afghanistan arising from his Pashtun ethnicity and Sunni faith. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of being subjected to significant harm arising from the overall security situation and general violence in Afghanistan.

   The Applicant as a Returnee

7. In her submission of 26 May 2015, the applicant’s representative contended that the applicant’s return to Paktia, as a western returnee, who has been absent from his area for a long period, would remain at a particularly heightened risk of targeted harm by the Taliban or anti-government elements operating within his area. It was submitted that the applicant would be more identifiable as compared to other Pashtuns who have been residing in the Paktia Province through his accent, his lack of links in the area and lack of local knowledge arising from his absence from the area for a number of years.

8. In its country information report of September 2015, DFAT stated that it was aware of occasional reports of returnees from western countries alleging they have been kidnapped or otherwise targeted on the basis of having spent time in a western country. While DFAT did not express an opinion as to the veracity of those claims, it stated that people who are identifiable as being associated with foreign (particularly western) countries may be targeted by insurgent groups such as the Taliban. DFAT assessed that returnees from western countries face a similar level of risk to other people in Afghanistan who are associated with support for the government or the international community.[14] There is widespread violence against individuals because of their perceived support for or association with the government, or perceived opposition to anti-government elements. DFAT has reported that:

   Insurgent and terrorist groups, including the Taliban, openly target government officials and people associated with the international community. These individuals are often subject to intimidation, threats, abduction and killing. These attacks occur throughout Afghanistan, including Kabul.[15]

   [14] DFAT, n1, above.

   [15] Ibid.

9. Elsewhere in the report, DFAT stated that in kidnappings of civilians travelling by road, insurgent groups typically target people associated with the government and the international community.[16] DFAT stated that people in this situation often take measures to conceal their association, such as not travelling with documents or symbols that may link them to the Afghan government, the international community based in Afghanistan or western countries. DFAT assessed that returnees from western countries who maintain a low profile such as by taking steps to conceal their association with the country from which they have returned do not face a significantly higher risk of violence or discrimination than do other people in Afghanistan with a similar ethnic and religious profile.[17]

   [16] Ibid.

   [17] Ibid

10. The Tribunal is of the view that by returning to a contested area, such as Paktia, as a western returnee, the applicant faces a real chance of being seriously harmed by the Taliban or other insurgents groups for his imputed anti-Taliban or a pro-government opinion in his local area or while travelling to his local area.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would be able to completely conceal his association with Australia in order to his chance of facing serious harm remote.

    Relocation

11. The Tribunal has considered whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another area of Afghanistan.

12. Information before the Tribunal suggests that many Afghans, even those who have never lived in Kabul before, return or relocate to Kabul due to their concerns about security or economic prospects in other parts of Afghanistan.[18] In view of the applicant’s background and the country condition, the Tribunal is the view that, if he could, the applicant would seek to relocate to Kabul.

    [18] Metcalfe, V, Haysom, S & Martin, E 2012, Sanctuary in the city? Urban displacement and vulnerability in Kabul, HPG Working Paper, June, pp.1,7, also Majidi, N. 2011, ‘Urban Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons in Afghanistan’, Middle East Institute & Foundation pour la. Recherche Strategique, 25 January, pp.7-8, Refugee Cooperation website, >

    According to DFAT,

    Large urban areas in Afghanistan are home to mixed ethnic and religious communities and offer greater opportunities for employment, access to services and a greater degree of state protection than many other areas. As Afghanistan’s largest urban centre, Kabul provides the most viable option for many people for internal relocation and resettlement in Afghanistan. This applies to those displaced by conflict and natural disasters, economic migrants and returnees to Afghanistan.[19]

    [19] DFAT, Thematic Report - Condition in Kabul,18 September 2015

13. The report goes on to state that:

    In practice… a lack of financial resources and lack of employment opportunities are the greatest constraints on successful internal relocation. This is compounded by Kabul’s relatively high cost of living, particularly for housing. Internal relocation to urban areas is generally more successful for single men of working age, provided they are able to make use of family or tribal networks. Unaccompanied women and children are least likely to be able to successfully relocate to urban areas, particularly if these networks are lacking.[20]

    [20] Ibid

14. With regard to family or tribal networks, DFAT states:

    Traditional extended family and tribal community structures of Afghan society are the main protection and coping mechanism for people in Afghanistan, who rely on these networks for their safety and economic survival, including access to accommodation and an adequate level of subsistence. People tend to move and settle in large groups, often with several other families, for this reason. As a consequence, large groups of people can arrive in a particular area, resulting in rapid population growth and a strain on infrastructure and services.[21]

    [21] Ibid.

15. In another part of the reprt DFAT noted:

    Although there are no reliable statistics, unemployment is widespread in Kabul and underemployment is also common. The influx of IDPs and returnees to the city has put pressure on the local labour market. The decrease in the international presence and the tight budgetary situation of the Afghan government have further reduced the availability of quality employment opportunities. Those who have foreign language and computer skills tend to be best placed to find well-paid employment in Kabul, with new arrivals from rural areas at a disadvantage due to their lack of relevant skills. Many of these new arrivals also lack a network of family contacts needed to find employment. In this situation, employment may be irregular and often insecure–many work as relatively poorly paid day labourers who seek occasional work as it becomes available. Others are required to beg or work as street-sellers. Interviewees in Kabul for the preparation of this report often cited a lack of job opportunities as a key concern, more so even than the security situation.[22]

    [22] Ibid.

16. The Tribunal has also had regard to information in other sources, such as UNHCR and Forced Migration Review, indicating that returned male Afghan minors or young men under the age of 24 are a particular subset of urban displaced youth in Kabul and could face greater challenges than other displaced youth.[23]

    [23] Nassim Majidi, Urban Displaced Youth in Kabul, Forced Migration Review, Issue 46, May 2014.

17. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant has never resided in Kabul. While he has provided unsatisfactory and unreliable evidence in relation to his family’s whereabouts, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has any family in Kabul. The Tribunal accepts that he has no family or social connections to Kabul.

18. The applicant is a single, illiterate, unskilled young Pashtun in his early [age]. Although DFAT has reported that internal relocation to urban areas is generally more successful for single men of working age, UNHCR has advised that Afghans originating from rural areas, with few marketable professional skills beyond agriculture and animal husbandry, may have more difficulty reintegrating elsewhere.[24]

    [24] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, 6 August 2013, HCR/EG/AFG/13/01, >

    Having regard to the applicant’s individual circumstances, in particular his lack of family or social network in Kabul and his lack of professional or employment skills, the Tribunal is not satisfied that in this particular case it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate internally.

19. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Afghanistan.

20. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

    Shahyar Roushan
    Senior Member