1411498 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3648

1411498 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3648 (17 March 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1411498

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:James Jolliffe

DATE:17 March 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 17 March 2016 at 10:17am

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] December 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] June 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 March 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted in the English language. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The Tribunal also took evidence from the applicant's brother. That evidence was also taken in the English language.

   Relevant Law

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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’).

8. 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.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The Tribunal has before it the Department and Tribunal files relating to the applicant together with information available to it from a variety of sources.

10. The issues in this case are the applicant claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his Hazara ethnic extraction and because of his Shia Muslim religious beliefs . The applicant also claimed that he was at risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis that because he had lived overseas he could be subject to extortion attempts. He also claimed to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his political opinion in terms of his support for the Hazara  Democratic Party. He also claimed to fear harm on the basis of his membership of a particular social group in that he was an educated  Hazara Shia and would be at risk of harm in Pakistan on that basis.

11. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

12. In his protection Visa application which was received in December 2012 the applicant claimed that he had been born in Quetta in Baluchistan province in Pakistan on [date]. He claimed that he was of Hazara ethnic extraction and of the Shia Muslim faith. He claimed he had never married and he claimed that he had no right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country other than Pakistan. He claimed to have arrived in Australia [in] November 2012 as a [temporary entrant]. He claimed that he was issued with a Pakistani passport in [2012]. He claimed to have lived in Karachi between September 2007 and November 2012 and to have lived in Quetta between [specified year] and September 2007. He claimed to have been educated in Pakistan for [number] years and to have obtained a degree in [subject] in 2012. He claimed he was employed as an [occupation] for a short period in Pakistan before he came to Australia. In documentation provided in support of his protection Visa application he claimed that he had a brother who lived in Australia and that his father was dead and his mother and [siblings] lived in Pakistan. He provided a copy of his Pakistani passport in support of his protection Visa application.

13. The applicant provided a statutory declaration dated [December] 2012 in support of his protection Visa application. In summary in that declaration the applicant referred to Pakistan being a multicultural country and claimed that for the past decade the law and order situation in Pakistan had deteriorated. He referred to the existence of extremist religious groups and claimed that Sunni  people were engaged in a “fatwa” against non-Sunni people. The applicant referred to his parents having left Afghanistan in the 1980s and having settled in Quetta in Pakistan. In summary the applicant referred to his background in Pakistan in terms of his education. He referred to his ethnic extraction as an Hazara and that as a result he is also identified as a Shia Muslim. The applicant referred to extremist activity starting in Quetta after 2000 and named some extremist groups and he claimed that more than 800 Hazaras had been killed and more than 2000 injured. He referred to a number of terrorist incidents having occurred in Quetta and claimed that Hazaras were the targets of these incidents. He claimed that the terrorist/extremist groups could track him  down anywhere and that he could easily be a victim. He referred to his education and his employment after he completed his degree. He claimed that he went to a town for employment in April 2011 but when he got there he got regular calls threatening him and that after about a week he “escaped from [Town 1] to Karachi”. In May 2012 he got a new job but claimed that he was still getting telephone calls from unknown numbers on his phone. He decided that he wanted to leave Pakistan and decided to come to Australia. He obtained a Visa in November 2012. He claimed that it was difficult for Hazaras to be able to travel on buses because the owners of the buses believe having Hazara’s as passengers makes the buses targets for attacks. He claimed that he had gone to see his family before coming to Australia and had been in Quetta between [for several days in] November 2012 and claimed that [in] November there was a suicide attack [a short distance] away from where he was at the time. He claimed his life was under threat in Pakistan because of his ethnic extraction and his religion. He claimed if he returned to Pakistan he was at risk of being kidnapped and be subject to extortion attempts. He claimed that he would not be protected by authorities in Pakistan. He claimed that the extremists were carrying out their activities without being arrested or punished. He referred to his brother having been successful in a protection Visa application in 2011 in Australia. He also claimed that he was a member of the HDP party which he joined in 2007 and supported the party and referred to a former leader of the party having been killed in Quetta.. He claimed that in August 2011 he was at prayers in Quetta when there was a bomb blast [a short distance] away from him. He claimed that he knew some people who were killed in the blast. He is seeking protection in Australia.

14. In July 2013 the applicant forwarded a large volume of media and other materials to the Tribunal. In summary that material refers to attacks on Shia and Hazara people in Pakistan. There are also extracts from reports in relation to attacks on religious minority communities in Pakistan. There is a report of criticism by the United Nations Secretary-General about an attack and violence in Pakistan. Some of the media reports and other reports/materials provided by the applicant referred to the persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. There is a report of Australia offering 2500 hazara families asylum and also materials that suggests that Shia Muslims are not protected in Pakistan. Some of the materials that have been provided suggest that some of the killings have been targeted. There is an article entitled “contextualising militancy in Punjab” dated February 2013 which refers to militant extremism and terrorism in terms of the killing of Hazara Shias. There are articles in relation to bomb attacks in Quetta and warnings to  Shias by a terrorist group in Balochistan province. The applicant also forwarded copies of photographs in relation to acts of violence in Pakistan. In summary there are a number of articles dealing with violent attacks on Hazara and Shia people in Pakistan. One of the articles also refers to the death and wounding of a number of soldiers in Quetta as a result of a bomb attack. That attack appears to relate to the attack that the applicant referred to in his statutory declaration [in] November 2012.

15. The applicant was interviewed by a Department delegate in relation to his protection Visa application. That interview was in April 2013. The delegate declined to grant the applicant a protection Visa. A copy of the delegate’s record of decision was provided with the application for a review.

    TRIBUNAL HEARING

16. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 March 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented by his registered migration agent at the hearing. The hearing was conducted in the English language.

17. The applicant presented his Pakistani passport and a CD containing three video stories which he had downloaded from the Internet and which he claimed were relevant to his claims. The Tribunal looked at the materials on the CD after the hearing. Only one of the items on the CD, which was an interview, was conducted in the English language and related to the danger to Hazara people particularly in Quetta.. One of the items also appeared to relate to the Spanish cyclist story which was subsequently referred to by the applicant. The third item on the CD was said by the applicant to relate to the shooting of a bodyguard who was an Hazara person who was apparently killed in hospital. The applicant also provided a printout of an article from the Internet which was dated January 2014 and was headed "Pakistan guards die escorting Spain cyclist Javier Colorado". He also subsequently provided the Tribunal with a Google map in relation to Quetta in Pakistan and had shaded two areas on that map which he said indicated Hazara enclaves and including where his family home was in Quetta. A further signed statutory declaration from the applicant dated 23 February 2016 was handed to the Tribunal at the hearing. The Tribunal had been provided electronically with an unsigned copy of the declaration just before the Tribunal hearing.

18. The Tribunal sought to confirm the basis for the applicant's claims to fear harm and told the applicant that it understood his claims for protection in Australia were based around his Hazara ethnic extraction, his Shia Muslim faith, his claim that he would be subject to extortion attempts if he returned to Pakistan because he had been living overseas, together with his claim that he had an actual political opinion of supporting the Hazara Democratic party and he would be risk of harm on that basis in Pakistan. He also claimed to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his membership of a particular social group in that he was an educated Hazara Shia who would be at risk. He said that he feared harm on the basis of his "nationality" as a Hazara in Pakistan because his physical facial features were different and he could be easily identified. The Tribunal indicated that it understood this was a reference to the applicant's claim that he feared harm on the basis of his ethnic extraction. The applicant confirmed that he was seeking protection on the basis of the reasons outlined by the Tribunal and did not raise any further or additional grounds.

19. The applicant's [brother] gave evidence on the applicant's behalf. The Tribunal asked if the applicant's brother had made a statement but the applicant's representative said that the applicant's claims raised the same issues as the applicant's brothers issues. This was apparently a reference to the applicant's brother having been granted a protection Visa in Australia on an earlier occasion. The Tribunal was not provided with a statement from the witness and was not provided with an outline of the witnesses evidence. The Tribunal referred to the Practice Direction from the President of the Tribunal in relation to both the applicant's further statutory declaration which had been provided to the Tribunal just prior to the hearing and also to the fact that no statement or outline of statement had been provided in relation to the evidence to be provided to the Tribunal from the applicant's brother. The applicant's representative said that she had been busy working in Adelaide and that the Tribunal had not granted an adjournment application and that she had returned for the hearing. She also said that she had been expecting another member of the Tribunal to conduct the hearing. The Tribunal asked  why she raised that issue. She did not indicate she had any objection to the currently constituted Tribunal.

20. The applicant's brother provided the Tribunal with his  [Australian] driver's licence. He said that his brother (the applicant) had been living with him in Australia when he first came to Australia but that his brother now lives at another address. [The applicant’s brother] said that he was now an Australian citizen and that he had come to Australia on a [temporary] Visa and had then sought protection and  he outlined the basis of his claims for seeking protection in Australia. The Tribunal asked the witness what he could tell the Tribunal about the applicant and he said that the applicant was his brother and that he had been scared in Pakistan and referred to the applicant having obtained a job and getting unknown threatening telephone calls. The witness said he had told the applicant to leave that location and to go to Karachi. He said the applicant got another job in Karachi but then had been receiving calls there and the applicant had changed his mobile phone number. He said he had used a friend's mobile phone to contact his family. The witness said that the applicant had come to Australia and enrolled in a [subject] course of [a] University but never commenced the course. He said that the applicant follows his religion in Australia by praying five times a day and engages in one month of fasting during Shia religious festivals and participates in Muharram. He said the applicant and he attend a Shia holy place in Sydney every Friday.

21. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal and confirmed his personal details. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's brother had a different last name to the applicant. The applicant said that was something that his father had decided to do. The Tribunal notes that documentation provided by the applicant in support of his protection Visa application indicated that his brothers had a different last name/family name to the applicant.

22. He told the Tribunal that he feared harm in Pakistan from "other nationalities" and nominated Pashtun people as well as an Islamic group LeJ ( Lashkar e Jhingvi) in terms of who he was afraid of if he returned to Pakistan.

23. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims for protection. He told the Tribunal that he had never suffered any actual physical harm in Pakistan. He claimed to the Tribunal that he had been involved in incidents in Pakistan [in] July 2003 and [in] March 2004. The Tribunal noted that in the applicant's statutory declaration in support of his protection Visa application he had referred to a number of incidents that had occurred in Pakistan but the statutory declaration did not in its terms suggest that the applicant had been involved in any of those incidents. The applicant's statutory declaration and his later declaration suggested that the applicant had been in this proximity of two bomb blasts when he was in Pakistan. They were the bomb blasts [in] November 2014 in  Quetta and which the applicant claimed occurred when he was travelling to the airport and another bomb blast in Quetta in August 2011. The Tribunal indicated the Department delegate's record of decision also did not suggest that the applicant claimed that he had been in the proximity of other bomb blasts apart from the two referred to. The applicant's representative indicated that the applicant had raised the additional bomb blasts during the interview with the Department delegate. The Tribunal indicated that it was unable to find any reference in the delegate's record of decision to those additional incidents and invited the representative to indicate where the delegate in the decision record had referred to those additional incidents. The Tribunal raised its concern that the applicant appeared to be raising fresh claims that he was involved in two additional incidents where bombs and violence had occurred when he had been in Pakistan. The Tribunal indicated that it was concerned that the applicant had not raised these claims at an earlier time in his protection Visa application process. The applicant said that he could recall the two additional incidents. He told the Tribunal in relation to the March 2004 incident that he had been in a Muharram procession in Quetta and that he saw people firing weapons at people in the procession from a building. He said that procession was about [distance] away from his family home in Quetta. He said the other incident [in July] 2003 occurred at a Shia holy place (Imanbargah Kala) in Quetta and he had been attending Friday prayers and it was about [distance range] away from his family home. He claimed the two suicide bombers had attacked the mosque on that occasion and detonated suicide bombs. He said he could remember being there on that occasion.

1. He told the Tribunal that he had engaged in religious processions in Quetta but not in Karachi. He told the Tribunal in practising as a Shia Muslim in Pakistan that when he lived in Karachi between 2008 and 2012 he had not attended at a mosque and had not participated in religious processions but had stayed home and prayed at home. He said his focus in Karachi was on his studies. He told the Tribunal that in practising his religion in Quetta he had attended Muharram every year and had prayed every day at the mosque. He said he was a practising Shia but "not very religious".

2. He told the Tribunal he had not been a member of any Shia student organisation in Karachi. He later told the Tribunal when he was asked questions about his involvement with the Hazara Democratic Party(HDP) that he had been a member of the student wing of that party(HSF) in 2004 when he was still in Quetta. He said the work that he did as a member of the student wing then was essentially student advisory work and career counselling for younger students.  He told the Tribunal that "he did nothing special" for the (HDP) Party after he joined it in 2007. He said that work involved arranging logistics for meetings and that he would go and visit families to see if they needed assistance and he did something for the party every few months but there was nothing of any significance that he did for the Party because his focus was on being a student. He told the Tribunal that he had not suffered any harm when he had been carrying out work for the HDP. The Tribunal indicated that the applicant's evidence suggested that he was engaged in very low level activities on behalf of the HDP.

3. The applicant was asked about his claims that he had received threatening telephone calls in Pakistan. He said that when he was in [Town 1] he had started to receive telephone calls. He had accepted some calls but not other calls. He said the calls usually occurred in the day. He received about two or three calls a day over the week that he was in [Town 1] and received over 20 calls in the entire week. The Tribunal asked the applicant what was said on these occasions and he replied they said words to the effect "they were going to shoot him if they saw him again". He claimed that he could hear people in the background when these calls were made. He told the Tribunal that he did not report the calls to his employer or the police. He said he did not trust his employer who he said was a Pashtun person. He said he did not trust the police but told the Tribunal that he had not had any problems with the police when he was in Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that he decided to leave [Town 1] after he had spoken to his brother about the telephone calls. He relocated to Karachi. He only stayed in the job in [Town 1] for one week and did not tell his employer when he decided to leave. He apparently left in April 2012. He then told the Tribunal he obtained another job in Karachi in May 2012. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims that he had received further threatening telephone calls when he relocated to Karachi. The Tribunal had some difficulty in ascertaining whether the applicant had changed telephones or changed telephone numbers when he relocated to Karachi. He said he had changed his number but was still getting telephone calls. He said he got threatening calls "a few times a week" when he was in Karachi and that the callers had said words to the effect "I am going to kill you. I am going to shoot you". He said he quit his job in Karachi after three weeks because he was worried. He said after May 2012 after he left the job in Karachi he switched off his phone. He then stayed home and undertook an international language testing course. He said he was living at home in Karachi and getting assistance from his brother in order to survive. He confirmed to the Tribunal that the only time he had received threatening telephone calls was when he had been employed for one week in [Town 1] and three weeks in Karachi. He said he did not report the threatening phone calls to the police in Karachi and he did not report the threatening phone calls to his employer in Karachi. He said his employer in Karachi was a Punjabi

4. He was asked if any other members of his family had suffered harm in Pakistan. The applicant's brother had given evidence to the Tribunal that he had obtained protection in Australia on the basis of being a supporter of the Hazara Democratic Party and because he was a Hazara Shia and he also had developed a profile because he had been a [prominent competitor] and a known [sports] player and he believed that he was at risk in Pakistan as a result.

5. The applicant told the Tribunal that his family had conducted a successful [product] business in Quetta but that his brother who was running the business had been threatened and sold the business in 2008. The applicant claimed that his brother had been shot in Quetta before the applicant went to university but he could not remember any details other than the brother was still conducting the business at that stage. The applicant did not suggest that there had been any other incidents involving his family in terms of suffering harm other than the incidents he referred to. The Tribunal notes that in the statutory declaration dated 23 February 2016 the applicant said that his [family members] work in a [product] shop within one of the Hazara enclaves in Quetta but he told the Tribunal that they did not own that business. The applicant also referred in that declaration to [a family member] having [medical conditions] which meant that [they] could not work and remained at home. The applicant was asked about his claim that he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis that he could be subject to extortion attempts. In essence he told the Tribunal that perhaps his brother who had run the [family] business had been shot as part of an attempt to obtain money from him. The applicant said that he was afraid on this basis because he thought there was a mentality in Pakistan that because he had been overseas he would have money and be at risk on that basis.

6. The applicant was asked why he could not relocate to Karachi if he returned to Pakistan and feared harm in Quetta. He said that because he is an Hazara and a Shia Muslim that he would be at risk and could not relocate. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had spent 4 ½ years studying in Karachi and did not claim that he had suffered any harm during that period. The Tribunal noted the applicant had obtained employment in Karachi for about three weeks. The DFAT country information available to the Tribunal and referred to elsewhere in these reasons indicates that since the commencement of the Ranger paramilitary operations that the level of crime and violence in Karachi and including sectarian violence has dropped significantly. The applicant claimed that it was hard to relocate as a Shia Muslim in Pakistan. The Tribunal notes that the applicant in his statutory declaration of 23 February 2016 claimed that it was not possible to safely relocate in Pakistan and that “all over the country is a campaign of hatred, discrimination against the Shi’ias, the Ahmadis or anyone who is not considered mainstream”. He told the Tribunal that when he had returned to Quetta by plane in November 2012 to see his mother that he was scared and claimed/implied that the security arrangements in place for Hazaras in Quetta were like being in detention. The Tribunal notes that in his statutory declaration of February 2016 he claimed that the Hazara enclaves in Quetta were “like ghettoes” and that people in those areas were relying on other ethnic groups to bring in food and necessities. He also claimed that his [sibling] had wanted to marry someone who lived in the other Hazara enclave but that it was impossible to have a wedding party because of the difficulties notwithstanding that the two Hazara [enclaves] were only a few kilometres apart.

7. The applicant told the Tribunal that he came to Australia because it was a better place for human rights and his brother was in Australia and he was able to provide support to the applicant. He claimed that he could have stayed in Pakistan and gotten a good job and then after two years could have applied to come to Australia as a skilled migrant but he could not remain in Pakistan because he was afraid and that’s why he came to Australia and sought protection. He made those comments in the context of the Tribunal raising the Department delegate’s record of decision and the delegate not accepting a number of the applicant’s claims. The delegate did not accept that the applicant left both his jobs in Pakistan because he was receiving threatening telephone calls or that the applicant had a profile of prominence that would place him at risk in Pakistan and had also been unable to find any country information supporting the applicant’s claims that he would be at risk of extortion because he had lived overseas. The delegate was also not satisfied having regard to country information that all Shia professionals and including Hazaras are at risk of being targeted for harm in Pakistan. The delegate also noted that the applicant had not provided any compelling reasons as to why he could not relocate to Karachi to avoid any harm in Quetta.

8. The applicant was asked about his claim that he feared harm as a member of a particular social group if he returned to Pakistan on the basis that he was an educated Hazara Shia. The Tribunal did not find the applicant’s claims to fear harm on this basis to be convincing. It appeared to the Tribunal that the applicant was essentially claiming that because he was a Hazara Shia who had lived overseas and was educated that he would be at risk of harm.

9. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had seen a [health professional] about a year ago because of his fears but had not seen a [professional] since then and he was not taking any medication in relation to any [related] conditions or, as far as the Tribunal could ascertain, in relation to any other conditions.

10. The applicant told the Tribunal that he wanted to remain in Australia and was afraid to return to Pakistan and wanted to start a new life in Australia.

11. The Tribunal referred to country information contained in the DFAT reports. Those reports are the country report for Pakistan dated January 2016 together with the thematic report for Shia people in Pakistan dated January 2016 and information contained in the DFAT thematic report on Hazara's in Afghanistan in Pakistan. That report is dated March 2014.

12. In relation to the country report the Tribunal noted that corruption in Pakistan is widespread and that the Department assessment is that the low-level of development in Pakistan is a significant push factor for external migration. The Tribunal noted that Pakistan continues to face security threats from terrorist, militant and sectarian groups. The country report indicates that the counterterrorism military operation that commenced in June 2014 against terrorists and militant groups in FATA and Karachi has substantially reduced the level of generalised and sectarian violence throughout the country. Credible sources were reported to have claimed a 75% reduction in the number of sectarian and terrorist attacks throughout Pakistani between September 2014 and September 2015. The country report indicated that the security situation varies between Pakistan's provinces and autonomous regions. The level of violence varies between provinces and including Sindh province where Karachi is located. Urban centres tend to be more secure than rural areas. The country report noted that organised and violent crimes such as robbery and kidnappings for ransom occur throughout Pakistan. The paramilitary ranger operations in Karachi are said to have substantially reduced the level of serious crime throughout Pakistan.

13. The country report noted that with the exception of Pakistan's Ahmadi community most Pakistanis are able to practice their religion freely although opportunities for religious freedom are generally greater in large urban centres than rural areas. The Department assessment is that there is generally a low level of official discrimination in Pakistan on the basis of religion but there is a moderate level of societal discrimination. The country report indicates that since September 2013 ranger paramilitary operations aimed at dismantling extensive militant and politico-criminal networks in Karachi have reduced the number of militant attacks and lessened the activities of criminal syndicates. According to official statistics there has been a 73% reduction in the number of targeted killings and an 85% reduction in the number of kidnapping for ransom incidents in Karachi in 2015. The report indicated that the Department does not yet have sufficient information to assess the sustainability of this downward trend in relation to crime statistics. The country report indicated in relation to state protection that Pakistan's laws and Constitution provide for state protection but the Department assessment is state protection is limited by resources and in some cases political will and personal means.

14. The country report indicates that the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of movement in Pakistan and that there is a high level of internal migration. The report notes that because of Pakistan's size and diversity there are viable relocation options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities and that many large urban centres are home to mixed ethnic and religious communities and offer a greater degree of anonymity as well as better employment prospects and access to services and state protection than smaller urban areas or rural areas. The country report indicates that document fraud is endemic in Pakistan and that there is credible evidence of police in Pakistan accepting bribes to verify fraudulent first information reports. The report notes that the existence of a first information report does not therefore constitute evidence that the described events actually occurred.

15. The Tribunal referred to information contained in the DFAT thematic report of January 2016 in relation to Shia people in Pakistan. The Tribunal noted that the Shia population is spread throughout Pakistan and that Shia and Sunni communities are generally well integrated in a number of urban centres and including Karachi. The thematic report refers to the Pakistan constitution providing for freedom of religion in the report also notes that there are no legal barriers to interfaith marriage or religious conversion. The report notes that when interfaith marriages do occur one partner, usually the bride, generally undergoes religious conversion. The report notes that Shia mosques and places of worship are located throughout Pakistan. Shias are most prominent during Shia religious festivals and pilgrimages to Iran. The report notes that Shias are well represented through high-level professions in Pakistan such as doctors and lawyers. Shias are well represented in parliament. The report refers to violence and refers again to the issues raised in the country report that credible sources have reported a 75% reduction in the number of terrorist attacks throughout Pakistani from September 2014 to September 2015. The report indicates that sectarian attacks have historically targeted individuals and places of worship and religious schools and that according to statistics 58% of the victims  from sectarian violence from January to June 2015 were Shia people. The Department assessment is that there is a low risk of sectarian violence for most Shias in Pakistan and a moderate threat of sectarian violence for prominent Shias such as high profile professionals.

16. The report indicates that Shia people continue to face a threat from anti-Shia and militant groups and that the group known as LeJ is the main perpetrator of anti-Shia violence in Pakistan. That group has claimed responsibility for a large number of attacks upon the Shia community and including in Karachi and that the Department has been told that group remains intact and has sleeper cells in major urban centres across Pakistan. The thematic report indicates that there were only three acts of communal sectarian violence in 2014 resulting in two deaths. The report also indicates that there were six attacks on Shia mosques in 2015 which killed 111 people. This represents an increase in casualties but a decline in the overall number of attacks from 2014 and the most recent significant attack was on 30 January 2015 against a Shia place of worship in the Sindh province. The Tribunal referred to information in the thematic report in relation to Shias in the Punjab and noted that in cities such as Lahore, Sunni and Shia people are generally more integrated and that levels of generalised and sectarian violence remain lower in the Punjab than other parts of Pakistan. The report indicates that there were no Shia deaths from sectarian violence in Lahore in 2015. The report indicates that since the commencement of the military operation in June 2014 there has been a downward trend of violence across all the provinces and regions in Pakistan.

17. The report indicates that the Department assessment is that Pakistani authorities are broadly willing to protect Shia communities however capacity constraints limit the authorities abilities to protect the Shia community which is large and widely dispersed in Pakistan. The report indicates as does the country report that there are options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities including Shia people to relocate to areas of relative safety within Pakistan and that the Department has observed that Shia people relocate with relative ease and frequency because of family and communal networks throughout Pakistani. The thematic report in referring to Balochistan province (where Quetta is located) notes that province has suffered from ethnic and sectarian tensions and politically motivated violence. The report notes that the Department has been told that the number of sectarian attacks in the province had declined in 2015. However the report also notes that the Hazara community has been targeted to a greater extent than other Shia people in that province. The report notes that credible sources have informed the Department that security forces continue to escort Hazara people travelling to and from their workplaces in Quetta. The Department assessment is that there is a moderate level of generalised violence in the province and a moderate level of sectarian violence and that Hazara Shias remain segregated and are a key target of militant groups in the province.

18. The Tribunal noted in relation to the thematic report on Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan that Hazara people are visibly distinct from any other ethnic groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan and are overwhelmingly Shia Muslims. The report indicates that Hazara people are not indigenous to Pakistan but have migrated from Afghanistan over the last century. The report indicates that the Department assessment is that the greatest threat to these people is from targeting by militants or sectarian clashes in the community. The major threat comes from anti-Shia and militant groups and including LeJ and SSP and because they are ethnically distinct Hazaras are readily identifiable as Shia Muslims and have been targeted by militants on that basis. The report notes that travel in some parts of Pakistan can be dangerous for all Pakistanis and that Pakistani media frequently report on Hazaras being attacked on roads in and around Quetta. The report refers to state protection and that Pakistani authorities face capacity constraints in providing protection at all times and in all places to the Hazara community. The report also notes that some Hazaras have relocated in Pakistan to Lahore and Karachi from other higher risk areas in Pakistan.

1. The applicant’s representative said that she was not aware of the 2016 DFAT reports referred to by the Tribunal. The Tribunal indicated that it if the representative contacted the Tribunal the Tribunal was prepared to release those reports to her to assist in relation to any submissions. The representative disagreed with aspects of all three reports referred to by the Tribunal. The representative also submitted that the applicant’s student profile in terms of his success in obtaining entry to his course at University and a scholarship place him at risk if he returned to Pakistan because he is a Hazara Shia. The applicant conceded that he had never been physically harmed in Pakistan but also indicated that the Ranger paramilitary activities have been focused on targeting political groups engaged in violence and that violence was still occurring in Quetta.

2. The Tribunal referred to concerns that it had about the applicant’s claims and about his evidence. The Tribunal raised a concern that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of harm if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal indicated that the applicant’s evidence about the practice of his Shia faith did not indicate to the Tribunal or suggest to the Tribunal that he would be at risk of harm on that basis given that he did not appear to have a profile that would suggest or indicate that he was prominent as a Shia person in terms of religious activities or political activities. The Tribunal indicated that it had a concern that if the applicant did face harm in Pakistan that he could relocate to avoid harm. The Tribunal noted that he had been educated in Karachi and had obtained employment in Karachi and had lived in Karachi for around four years and had not had any difficulties when he was there. The Tribunal indicated that the DFAT reports that have been referred to were not supportive of a number of the applicant’s claims regarding risks to him in Pakistan. The Tribunal indicated that the evidence before the Tribunal was that the applicant had no real prominent political or religious profile that would suggest he would be at risk of harm in accordance with country information .The Tribunal also raised its concern about the claims that the applicant had been involved in terms of being in the vicinity of suicide bombings and shootings in April 2003 and March 2004. The Tribunal raised these issues in the context that these appeared to be recent claims by the applicant that had not been raised previously. The Tribunal noted that the two statutory declarations from the applicant did not indicate that he had actually been involved in those two incidents. The applicant’s representative indicated that the two incidents were not fresh evidence or fresh claims as such given that the applicant had referred to these incidents in general terms in his first statutory declaration. The Tribunal disagreed and indicated that the applicant’s reference in his first statutory declaration to these events did not suggest that he had actually been involved or in the close vicinity of these particular incidents. The applicant said in commenting on the Tribunal’s concerns that security personnel at Sydney airport had spoken to a  person who said they were returning to Pakistan and indicated that they were surprised that someone would be returning to a place that had significant risks.

3. The Tribunal allowed until 14 March 2006 for any further submissions or comments to be provided to the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal received further submissions and information from the applicant's registered migration agent on 15 March 2016. In summary those submissions referred to the Tribunal hearing and submitted that the applicant was at risk of being kidnapped for ransom because he had lived overseas and that was on the basis that he was highly educated and belonged to a minority ethnic and religious group. In summary the submissions suggest that kidnappings of businessmen and ordinary citizens for ransom is common in Pakistan and the submissions suggest that the profile of the applicant would put him at risk in that regard. Reference was made to media reports regarding the Pakistani Taliban's activities in relation to kidnappings and that Karachi was described as a "notorious centre for kidnapping" and the suggestion made that the Taliban and crime groups work together in relation to these activities. Reference was made to kidnappings in 2013/ 2014 and the suggestion made that many kidnappings are not reported to police authorities. The submissions refer to the DFAT thematic report of January 2016 and suggests that the report portrays a "more optimistic picture" in terms of the police and military crackdown on terrorist and militant groups in Pakistan. In summary reference is made to the applicant's background and the submission made that it is unlikely that the applicant could  be effectively protected by authorities in Pakistan. The submissions in summary indicate that the threat of sectarian violence is such that the applicant could face serious harm from terrorist groups because of his religion and ethnic extraction. The submissions refer to extracts from the DFAT report in relation to violence by province in Pakistan but indicate that while "conditions may be improving in Pakistan according to the DFAT sources, but no one could never discount the possibility of serious harm in Karachi or elsewhere".

4. Reference is made in the submissions to state protection and in essence the submissions suggest that because of limited resources state protection in terms of pursuing offenders in terms of terrorist and sectarian violence may not be effective. The submissions refer to the threat to the applicant coming from non state actors and in that context the submissions refer to judicial authority in Australia in terms of decisions of the High Court of Australia and discussions about the concept of state protection in those decisions. The submissions also refer to relocation in relation to the applicant. The submissions suggest that the applicant while he was studying Karachi did not leave his student accommodation except to attend university. The submissions also indicate that the applicant does not have family networks in any other city outside Quetta. The submissions refer to the dangers and risks for Hazara people in Quetta. The submissions refer to state protection and the UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing international protection needs of members of religious minorities in Pakistan dated May 2012. The submissions suggest that it may not be reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate because he would need to find employment and accommodation and practice his religion "without attracting the adverse attention of religious extremists" and that his previous experience indicates the difficulties that the applicant has previously faced and that he would face "an appreciable risk of being harmed outside" his home province because of his race and religion. The submissions in summary refer to the provisions of the Migration Act in relation to the applicant's claims and submit that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution for reasons of his religion and his ethnic extraction if he returns to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The submissions attached an extract from another Tribunal decision which indicated that on that occasion relocation within Pakistan was not seen as a viable option for the applicant in that particular case.

5. A document was also forwarded from the Hazara Democratic Party. That document was dated [in] March 2016 and referred to the applicant as being an active member of that party. In summary the document refers to the "current reign of terror in Pakistan especially in Quetta" and refers to the threats to members of the Hazara community and the deaths of a number of people in the community and that no one has been convicted in relation to those deaths. The document refers to the ongoing incidents of enforced disappearances and an environment where ethnic and sectarian and discrimination and prejudice prevails. The document refers to the "genocide" of  Hazara people belonging to the Shia faith and refers to particular instances of killings in January 2013 and February 2013 in Balochistan province. The letter comes from the [senior official] of the party and asked that the applicant's application for a protection be granted.

   Also forwarded with the submissions was a media story headed "rangers claim 19 Karachi police officials involved in extortion, kidnapping". That article was dated August 2015. In summary the media article refers to claims that officials in Karachi had been involved in extortion and kidnapping and other crimes. There was also an extract of information in relation to Pakistan concerning crime and safety reports for Karachi in 2015 in relation to US citizens. That report was prepared by the Overseas Security Advisory Council based in Washington in the United States. The report referred to a high crime rating in relation to Karachi and that Westerners were at risk of being targets of violence. Reference was made to the United States Department of State warning American citizens to defer non-essential travel to Pakistan and that many areas in Karachi were considered unsafe. Reference was also made to the dangers of travelling to a number of provinces in Pakistan and including Balochistan. The report dealt with a number of issues and including political, economic, religious and ethnic violence.Tthe report referred to the activities of various terrorist groups in relation to areas of Pakistan and including in Karachi and other parts of Sindh province as well as the risks of harm from terrorism and politically motivated violence in Balochistan province. The report notes that over 142 police and Rangers were killed in Karachi in 2014. In summary the report refers to anti-American and anti-Western sentiment and notes that there were a number of small anti-American demonstrations and 2014 but the overall number and size declined from previous years. The report also refers to civil unrest and refers to risks in Karachi but notes that the police have demonstrated the capacity to mobilise quickly and  in force and have been largely effective in protecting diplomatic facilities and Pakistani government buildings. The report notes that visitors to Karachi are advised to avoid demonstrations, large crowds, and public gatherings that appear to be political. The report indicates that instances of sectarian and ethnic violence in Karachi and the remainder of that province and Balochistan province remain "unabated" and refers to a report indicating that nearly 3000 people were killed in Karachi as a result of sectarian violence in 2014. In summary the report also refers to environmental hazards and a variety of other issues and including kidnapping threats which is described as a major industry in Karachi and elsewhere in Pakistan. The report notes that criminal and extremist groups often targeted local businessman and prominent families to extort ransoms for profit or to finance operations. The capacity of police to respond in Pakistan is described as below the professional standards of the United States due to a lack of training and resources and low salaries and  also refer to other difficulties surrounding the police capacity to respond effectively. The report deals with a number of other aspects in relation to travellers to Pakistan.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. On the basis of the materials and information provided to the Department and to the Tribunal the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Pakistani citizen and that his identity is as he claims it to be. The Tribunal accepts on the basis of the information and materials provided that the applicant does not have a right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts that Pakistan is the applicant’s country of nationality for Convention purposes and is the receiving country for Complementary protection purposes

7. the Tribunal is not satisfied as to some aspects of the applicant’s claims that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Pakistan.

8. The applicant’s claims to fear harm are referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that he fears harm on the basis of his Hazara ethnic extraction and his Shia Muslim religion. The applicant’s evidence is that he feared harm if he returned to Quetta which is his family home or elsewhere in Pakistan. He gave evidence about the Hazara enclaves/districts in Quetta. He referred in his latest statutory declaration to ghetto like Hazara districts in Quetta. He referred to his fears about returning to Pakistan. The applicant’s evidence and claims largely linked his fears to the combination of his Hazara ethnic extraction and his Shia faith. The applicant had claimed in both statutory declarations that he had been in the near vicinity of two violent incidents in August 2011 and November 2012. He claimed before the Tribunal that he had been in the near vicinity of two other serious incidents in 2003 and 2004. The Tribunal has referred elsewhere to the applicant’s claims and evidence about these issues. The Tribunal has also referred to the applicant’s evidence about his practice of his Shia faith in Quetta and in Karachi and in Australia. He told the Tribunal in discussing his religious activities in Pakistan that he was not very religious but regarded himself as a practising Shia. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and the evidence about these issues and has had regard to submissions and information provided on the applicant’s behalf and by the applicant himself and particularly in relation to media and other information relating to issues in Pakistan that are said to be relevant to the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal has also had regard to information contained in the DFAT reports that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal accepts that the DFAT reports that have been referred to provide comparatively recent and credible information relevant to the applicant’s claims.

9. The Tribunal after considering these issues is prepared to accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of harm on the basis of his Hazara ethnic extraction and his Shia religious beliefs if he returned to Quetta in Pakistan which is his home area. The Tribunal accepts that the country information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons supports the applicant’s claims to fear harm on these grounds if he returned to Quetta. However the Tribunal believes based on relevant and credible and recent information in terms of the DFAT reports that have been referred to that the applicant could reasonably relocate elsewhere in Pakistan to avoid harm. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant lived for 4 ½ years in Karachi when he was attending University and again for a later period of a number of months between May and November 2012. He did not have any difficulties when he was studying in Karachi between 2008 and 2012. He told the Tribunal that in relation to his religious activities he did not go to the mosque during that period but prayed at home. He did not have any difficulties when he was studying in Karachi because of his religion or his ethnic extraction. He claimed that after he left university and sought employment that there had been a period of three weeks when he had lived in Karachi and been working where he had been subject to threatening telephone calls. He did not report those calls to either the police or to his then employer. The Tribunal did not find the applicant’s evidence about why he did not report the calls to the police or to his employer to be convincing. He told the Tribunal that in essence he did not trust the police but he had never had any difficulties with the police in Pakistan and he had previously told the Tribunal that he had not reported threatening calls when he had been in [Town 1] because his superior was a Pashtun person and he did not trust people of that ethnic background. His employer in Karachi was a Punjabi person. He claimed he left the job because he was afraid about the threatening calls but as indicated never reported the threatening calls to his employer or to the police.

10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant graduated from University with qualifications and that he was able to obtain employment after he graduated in [Town 1] and in Karachi. The applicant left those positions after being employed for one week and three weeks respectively. He claimed he left because he was receiving threatening telephone calls. The applicant is a single man and as indicated has lived in Karachi on two previous occasions. The country thematic information that has been referred to indicates that there has been a very significant reduction in the number of targeted killings and in kidnappings in Karachi since the commencement of the paramilitary Ranger operations in September 2013. The Department assessment is that there is a moderate level of generalised violence and a low level of sectarian violence in Karachi and that the number of fatalities from sectarian violence is relatively low in proportion to the cities large population. The thematic report indicates that there are Shia and including Hazara dominated enclaves in a number of areas in Karachi. The thematic report also indicates that Shia people are dispersed throughout the Punjab and that levels of generalised and sectarian violence remain lower in Punjab than other parts of Pakistan. The thematic report indicates there were no Shia deaths from sectarian violence in Lahore in the Punjab in 2015. The Tribunal notes that the thematic report for Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan indicates that the department assessment is that the low level of development and perceived lack of economic opportunity in Afghanistan and Pakistan acts as a primary push factor for external migration for the Hazara community. However as indicated the applicant is a university graduate who was able to obtain employment on two occasions in 2012 in Pakistan after he graduated. The thematic report of January 2016 indicates that in many cases there are options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities including Shias to relocate to areas of relative safety within Pakistan.

11. The Tribunal after considering the totality of the applicant’s evidence and his claims is prepared to accept that he was in the vicinity of two violent incidents in August 2011 and November 2014. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the applicant was in the vicinity of two incidents that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons that occurred in July 2003 and in March 2004. The Tribunal notes that in neither of the applicant’s statutory declarations did the applicant actually claim that he had been in the close vicinity of these claims incidents. The Tribunal believes that it is reasonable for it to assume that the applicant would have clearly raised those specific claims in his statutory declaration in support of his protection Visa application if in fact he had been in close proximity when these events occurred. In those circumstances the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was in close proximity to these two claimed events.

12. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that he left his employment on two occasions in 2012 because he received threatening telephone calls. The applicant’s claims and evidence about these telephone calls are referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The applicant claimed that he had not had any difficulty when he was in Karachi prior to taking up employment for one week in [Town 1]. He claimed he received over 20 calls during that one week. He claimed that after he went to Karachi even though he had changed his telephone number he still received some further threatening calls. He told the Tribunal after he left the employment in Karachi he turned his phone off and he did not have any further difficulties. He claimed he left his employment on those two occasions because he was afraid but yet never reported the incidents to police in either [Town 1] or Karachi and did not report the incidents to his employers.

1. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence about what he claimed was said to him on these occasions to be in essence that the callers had threatened to shoot him if they saw him again or in Karachi that the callers had threatened to kill him and shoot him. In essence that was the extent of the applicant’s evidence about these claimed telephone calls. He claimed he got over 20 telephone calls in [Town 1] but blocked a number of the calls. He claimed in Karachi that he got calls a few times a week . The applicant gave some confusing evidence to the Tribunal about changing his telephone and telephone numbers after he moved to Karachi. The applicant claimed that he feared harm from other nationalities and referred to Pashtuns and the Taliban and Islamic extremist groups and nominated LeJ specifically. As indicated the applicant told the Tribunal that he had never suffered any physical harm in Pakistan. Apart from being in the close vicinity of two violent incidents (although he claimed that there were four incidents) he had not suffered any other difficulties in terms of harm when he had been in Pakistan other than these telephone calls. The Tribunal after considering the totality of the applicant’s evidence about the claimed threatening telephone calls does not accept that the applicant left his employment because of these calls. The Tribunal after considering the totality of the evidence has concerns that the applicant received any threatening telephone calls but is prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt about these claimed calls. The Tribunal finds after considering the totality of the evidence, that the evidence indicates or suggests, that the applicant left his employment in order to undertake intensive English  language studies with a view to coming to Australia.

2. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence about his political activities on behalf of the Hazara Democratic party and his religious activities in considering the applicant’s claims. The evidence indicates that the applicant was involved in very low level functional activities on behalf of the Hazara Democratic party and his evidence in relation to those activities has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. As indicated he told the Tribunal that he had not done anything special for the Party. His evidence about his religious activities indicated that while he had engaged in a number of Shia religious activities in Quetta his religious activities in Karachi consisted of him praying at home. He told the Tribunal that his focus when he was studying was on his studies. As indicated the applicant obtained a degree. The Tribunal notes the thematic report of January 2016 indicates that the Department assessment is that there is a low risk of sectarian violence for most Shias in Pakistan and a moderate threat of sectarian violence for prominent Shias such as high profile professionals. The Tribunal does not accept and the evidence does not indicate that the applicant is a high profile professional. He only worked briefly for about one month in total as an [occupation] after he obtained his degree. His evidence about his religious activities and his activities on behalf of the HDP does not indicate or suggest to the Tribunal that he would be at risk of a real chance of serious harm because of the combination of his professional qualifications and his religious and political activities if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

3. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and the submissions made on his behalf that he would be at risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan because of extortion attempts because he had lived overseas. The applicant told the Tribunal that even though his family had been financially comfortable when they had the [product] business he claimed his family in Pakistan were not wealthy. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant presented any credible evidence that would indicate or suggest that he would be at risk of harm on this basis if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal notes that the country information contained in the  DFAT January 2016 report indicates that organised and violent crime such as robbery and kidnapping for ransom occurs throughout Pakistan however activities such as the paramilitary ranger operations in Karachi has substantially reduced the level of serious crime throughout Pakistan. The thematic report for Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan of March 2014 indicates that a number of Hazara’s have been killed in both targeted and random attacks in Karachi in the context of a high level of generalised violence and that this is often related to clashing business, political and criminal interests and that sectarian violence has been just one feature of the political landscape in that city. The  DFAT country report of January 2016 indicates that since the commencement of the assertive counterterrorism military operation in June 2014 Pakistan military operations against terrorists and militant groups in FATA and Karachi have substantially reduced the level of generalised and sectarian violence throughout the country. This trend increased over the course of 2015. Credible sources have reported a 75% reduction in the number of sectarian and terrorist attacks throughout Pakistan from September 2014 to September 2015. The security situation varies between Pakistan’s provinces and autonomous regions and varies depending on the location of Pakistan military operations. Urban centres tend to be more secure than rural areas.

4. The report also notes that while exact figures are not available the operation commenced by Pakistani authorities in June 2014 and which has expanded to encompass paramilitary Ranger operations in Karachi has substantially reduced the level of serious crime throughout Pakistan. The report also notes that because of Pakistan’s size and diversity there are viable relocation options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities and that internal relocation offers a degree of anonymity and the opportunity for victims to seek refuge from nonstate instigated discrimination or violence. Many large urban centres such as Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad are home to mixed ethnic and religious communities and offer a greater degree of anonymity and better opportunities for employment, access to services and state protection than rural or smaller urban areas. The report notes the transportation costs and the higher cost of living in larger cities can operate as a barrier to internal relocation, although they can be offset by higher wages typically received in these locations. There are a range of accommodation options in cities like Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad and no evidence to indicate any accommodation shortages. The Tribunal notes the submissions that have been made on the applicant's behalf and that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons regarding relocation.

5. The Tribunal after considering the totality of the issues considers that the country information that has been referred to indicates to the Tribunal that it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the applicant to relocate to another area of Pakistan if he fears harm in his home area of Quetta. As indicated the applicant has lived and studied previously for several years in Karachi and apparently did so without suffering harm. As indicated the applicant had previously found short-term employment in Karachi and left the job because he claimed he had received threats.. However apart from that claim the applicant did not claim that he had any other difficulties in residing in Karachi for several years. He lived in Karachi for several months after he left his employment and before he came to Australia and while he was undertaking his intensive English language course. The evidence before the Tribunal does not indicate or suggest that the applicant would be at risk of a real chance of serious harm on the basis of any business, political or criminal interests in Karachi if he were to relocate to that city either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

6. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims that he would be at risk of serious harm if he returned to Pakistan in that he would be a member of a particular social group of educated Hazara Shias. As indicated the country information that has been referred to in terms of the thematic report indicates a low risk of sectarian violence for most Shias and a moderate threat of sectarian violence for prominent Shia such as high profile professionals. As indicated the Tribunal does not accept that the evidence indicates that the applicant would be regarded as a high profile professional should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future and face a real chance of serious harm on this basis. The Tribunal notes the submissions that have been made on the applicant's behalf in this regard but as indicated does not accept that the applicant has a profile as a high profile professional that would place him at a real chance of serious harm on this basis. The Tribunal notes that the country information provided in the most recent submissions on the applicant's behalf refers to kidnapping being a major industry in Karachi and elsewhere in Pakistan and that  criminals and extremist groups often target local businessmen and prominent families to extort ransoms for profit or to finance operations. The evidence does not suggest that the applicant's profile would place him at risk in terms of being seen as a local businessman or belonging to a prominent family should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

7. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and evidence about his Shia religious activities and his support for the Hazara Democratic party. The applicant’s evidence about those issues and activities are referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal believes that if the applicant returned to Pakistan and relocated from Quetta to avoid harm that the country information and the evidence that has been referred to indicates and suggests that the applicant’s religious and political activities that he has engaged in previously would not place him, if he continued those previous activities, at a real chance of serious harm either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The DFAT thematic report of March 2014 indicates that Hazaras have relatively little political influence in Pakistan but that Hazara politicians have been successful previously in local government elections and have also been elected as members of both provincial and national assemblies. The Tribunal does not accept that the evidence or country information indicates that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his previous religious and political activities should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal notes the letter from the Hazara Democratic party in relation to the applicant that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. That letter does not alter the Tribunal's assessment in relation to the applicant's claims about these issues. The letter referred to the applicant being an active member of the party but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that he was engaged in very low level activities in support of that party. The risks to Hazara people referred to in the letter refer especially to events in Quetta.

8. The Tribunal after considering the applicant’s claims both individually and cumulatively does not accept on the basis of the evidence and materials and information and submissions before it that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for a convention based reason if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. As indicated the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a well-founded fear of harm on the basis of his Hazara ethnic extraction and his Shia Muslim religion if he returned to Quetta but the Tribunal believes that the applicant could avoid harm by relocating elsewhere in Pakistan. The Tribunal has referred to relevant country information contained in the DFAT reports. The Tribunal has referred to the applicant having lived in Karachi for several years while he was studying and that he was also able to obtain short-term employment there after he completed his university studies. Other than his claims that he received some threatening telephone calls the applicant did not claim that he had any other difficulties while living in Karachi. The Tribunal has considered the country information that has been referred to and the applicant’s circumstances and his evidence and the submissions made on his behalf and in those circumstances finds that it is safe and reasonable for the applicant to relocate elsewhere in Pakistan if he feared harm in Quetta.

9. The Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan that he faces a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal has considered the definition of significant harm contained in s.36(2A) of the Act.The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and the totality of the evidence and available and relevant country information in relation to the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal has referred elsewhere in these reasons to its assessment of the applicant’s claims and the evidence and the available and relevant country information and submissions made on the applicant's behalf. The Tribunal has referred to the applicant’s claims in relation to fearing harm from extortion attempts should he return to Pakistan and also to fearing harm on the other grounds that he raised. The Tribunal has considered and discussed the applicant’s claims and the evidence and relevant country information and submissions in relation to these issues elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal in those circumstances finds there is taken not to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in Pakistan because the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for him to relocate to an area of Pakistan where there would not be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. .

10. On the basis of the Tribunal’s assessment of the claims and the evidence and available and relevant information and submissions made on the applicant’s behalf the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan that there is a real risk that he will be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the definition of torture in section 5(1) of the Act.The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, or pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on the person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature, such as that would meet the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment in the Act. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in the Act. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty

    Overall Summary

11. 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).

12. 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).

13. 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

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

    James Jolliffe
    Member