1415730 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3402

1415730 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3402 (22 September 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1415730

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:James Jolliffe

DATE:22 September 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 22 September 2015 at 1:14pm

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] February 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] September 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 August 2015  to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.

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

   Relevant Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The Tribunal has before it the Departmental and Tribunal files relating to the applicant as well as information from a range of sources

11. The issue in this case is that the applicant claims to fear harm if he returned a Pakistani on the basis of his Shia Muslim beliefs and his involvement with Shia religious organisations in Pakistan .

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

13. In his protection visa application the applicant claimed that he was born on [date] in Sialkot in the Punjab in Pakistan. He claims to be of the Shia Muslim faith. He claims to have married in December 2007. He claims to hold only Pakistani citizenship and does not have a right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country. He claimed to have been issued with a Pakistani passport and his current passport was issued in [2013]. He claimed to have arrived in Australia [in] January 2014. He claimed he visited [other countries] between 2009 and August 2013. He claimed to have lived in [District 1] in Sialkot for 10 years before coming to Australia in January 2014. The applicant claimed to have been educated in Pakistan and to have completed [a tertiary qualification] in Pakistan. The applicant claimed that he had been employed in [a certain industry] in Pakistan and that his last employer before coming to Australia was as a [occupation] with [Company 2]. In his protection visa application the applicant said that he was of the Shia faith and was involved in activities in arranging Moharram. He said he was [an official] of the Shia community organisation called [name deleted] (which may be an incorrect reference to an organisation called Imamia Student Organisation located in [District 1]). He claimed that during Moharram the organisation held gatherings called Juloos and performed religious rights.

14. He claimed that because of his role with that Shia  organisation he became a target of Sunni religious extremists. He claimed this resulted in Sunni extremists firing weapons on a procession that he was part of and during the altercation one of the security guards for the procession had killed one of the Sunni extremists. He claimed that the police then “filed a FIR against me for involve in the attack but later release me because of no evidence”. He claimed after this incident he started receiving threatening telephone calls and that he was warned he would be killed and he claimed he reported those calls to the police but the police took no action. He claimed that he was travelling by car to ImamBargah when he was attacked by Sunni extremists who fired shots at him but he was able to escape. He claimed that he and his family then relocated to Islamabad. He then decided to leave Pakistan and come to Australia. He claimed to fear harm if he returned a Pakistani on the basis of his Shia religious background and his involvement with Shia religious and community activities and his involvement with the Shia organisation called [name]. He claimed that he could not obtain state protection in Pakistan nor could he relocate within Pakistani to avoid harm.

15. He subsequently provided a statutory declaration dated 22 August 2014 in support of his protection visa application. In that declaration the applicant claimed that he had completed his [tertiary qualification] and had worked at [Company 2] for 10 years before coming to Australia. He set out briefly his background with the  Imamia student organisation and described it as a Shia organisation. He claimed to have been appointed as [an official] of the organisation in [District 1] in 2012 and had to organise the “Juloos” and manage the Moharram activities. He claimed in that role he became a target of Sunni religious extremists. He claimed that in November 2013 “in the morning of [day] Muharram” he received a telephone call threatening him that he had to stop’ his activities, or he would face serious consequences. He claimed he continued to undertake his activities with the organisation. He claimed that during the Juloos procession that Sunni extremists attacked the procession and fired gunshots. He claimed in response that a security guard for the procession returned fire and that one of the Sunni extremists was killed. He claimed that after that incident the police had filed a first information report ( FIR) against him for his involvement in the attack because of his role as [an official] of the student organisation, and he had been involved in leading and managing the procession. He claimed he was released by the police because there was no evidence against him but that the police had arrested the security guard. He claimed after this incident that he received more threatening calls and that he was told that he was responsible for the death of the Sunni extremist who had been killed by the security guard. He claimed that the callers threatened to harm him and he reported the threats to the police and sought protection but the police took no action. He further claimed in his statutory declaration that on the [day] Moharram he was travelling in his car when he was attacked by Sunni extremists who fired shots but he was able to escape. He claimed after this incident he and his family moved to Islamabad. He claimed during this period he was waiting for his visitor visa to Australia and had applied for the visa in October 2013. He claimed that his daughter was injured in a car accident in December 2013 and that as a result he could not leave Pakistan until [date] January 2013. He referred to having lodged his protection visa application in February 2013. This appears to be a mistake as the applicant’s application was lodged in February 2014 and he left Pakistan in January 2014.

16. The applicant claimed that he was afraid to return to Pakistan because he feared being killed by the Sunni religious extremists. He claimed that his brother had been threatened since he has been in Australia. He claimed that he would not be able to avail himself of state protection if he returned to Pakistan nor would he be able to successfully relocate in Pakistan.

17. The applicant provided a number of documents to the Department in support of his claims. Those documents included an English language translation of a document which was claimed to be a first information report to police of a complaint made by [Mr A], who described himself as the brother of the person who had been killed by the security guard during the altercation at the religious procession which had been referred to by the applicant in his protection visa application and in his statutory declaration. The first information report referred to a rally [in] November 2013 in which the complainant claimed his brother had been shot and killed. The complainant claimed that the killing had been perpetrated by two unidentified perpetrators and the applicant. The applicant also provided a document which he claimed was an information report filed by him dated [in] November 2013 complaining to the police about threatening telephone calls and also referring to a claimed incident [in] November 2013 where he claimed he had been fired upon by people while he was in his car and travelling to Imam Bargah. The applicant also provided an undated document and an English language translation in relation to his claim that he was [an official] of the student organisation, together with a document and an English language translation of an information report to police filed by the applicant in relation to a threatening telephone call he claimed to have received [in] November 2013 telling him to stop the procession or there would be consequences. The Department file also contains biographical details and pages from the applicant’s current passport and also copies of pages from the applicant’s previous Pakistani passport.

18. The applicant’s representatives had provided submissions to the Department dated 24 August 2014. In summary those submissions referred to the applicant’s claims for seeking protection on the basis of his Shia religious beliefs, together with his membership of a particular social group in that he is a Shia person living in Pakistan and involved in organising Moharram and perceived to be a person who as a member of a particular social group holds views against the Taliban’s religious and political ideologies. The submissions also claimed that the applicant feared harm on the basis of his membership of the Imamia Student Organisation. The submissions also claimed that the applicant was entitled to protection under the complementary protection provisions in the Migration Act. In summary the submissions referred to various reports and statements from “recognised independent sources on persecution against religious minorities and in particular against members of the Shia religious minority in Pakistan”. The submissions in summary, also referred to “News and statements on the escalation of sunni-Shia tension in the Middle East, its links with the Pakistani Taliban and the serious consequences the Shia minorities in Pakistan in a foreseeable future (sic)”.

19. The submissions referred to various articles and reports on the “general human rights situation in Pakistan” and also referred to “relevant” RRT country advice reports and recent relevant (in terms of the applicant’s claims)RRT decisions on Pakistan. The submissions refer to the requirements in relation to the applicant’s claims for protection under the Refugee convention and referred to the historical background in relation to sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia religious practitioners in Pakistan. In summary the submissions refer to various media reports in relation to sectarian conflict in Pakistan. One extract suggests that “the Shia community has overwhelmingly been the recipient of violence, as opposed to its purveyor and has become the target of external parties using Pakistan as a field upon which to settle regional scores, as well as seeking to give violent expression to their own extremist religious sentiments”(see page 19 of the submissions). In summary the submissions refer to various media reports involving shootings and attacks and including bombings which were said to be based around sectarian violence in Pakistan. Some of these media reports referred to the attacks, having been carried out by the Taliban and their allies. One of the media reports refers to an incident in Australia on 25 November 2012 where it was said two men were arrested as a result of a threat at a mosque. It was claimed that the incident had occurred after “calls for violence against Shia was made on Facebook”.

20. The submissions, in summary, also referred to various international reports in relation to sectarian violence in Pakistan. Those reports included extracts from Human Rights Watch as well as Amnesty International reports as well as extracts from other international and national reports referring to sectarian violence in Pakistan. The submissions also referred to other media stories relating to sectarian violence in Pakistan and in particular in relation to violence perpetrated against members of the Shia religious faith.

21. The submissions, in summary, suggest that members of the Shia religious minority face persecution and harm in Pakistan and that the perpetrators include the Taliban and its “allied Islamic fundamentalist groups”. The submissions suggest that the Pakistani government is either unable or unwilling to protect that community and that educated and knowledgeable Shias are targeted for violence. The submissions suggest that Pakistani Shias face sectarian cleansing and the violence is increasing. The submissions claim that Islamic fundamentalists look to identify and harm Shias.

22. In summary the submissions suggest that Sunni Islamic extremists and including the Taliban have influence in the Punjab and particularly in Lahore and that the applicant could not safely relocate within the Punjab or elsewhere within Pakistan. In summary the submissions suggest that the sectarian violence within the Middle East in terms of the conflict between Sunni and Shia communities effectively spills over into Pakistan and that those wider tensions place the applicant at risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan. The submissions refer to various media reports in relation to this issue and those reports include reference to the war in Syria in terms of sectarian issues.

23. The submissions also refer to Pakistani political history and claimed human rights violations and refer to various international reports in relation to those issues and suggest that the security and political situation in Pakistan is volatile and dangerous and that there is a near collapse of the rule of law and democratic values in Pakistan and that much of the violence is fuelled by religious and tribal conflicts. The submissions suggest that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution in Pakistan because of his religious beliefs and because he comes from a well-known and wealthy Shia family. The submissions also suggest that the applicant is at risk of harm if returned to Pakistan because of his membership of  particular social groups and that  claim is based around the applicant being involved in Shia activities promoting and organising Moharram and those activities cause him to also be seen to have views against the Taliban’s religious and political ideologies. The submissions also suggest that the applicant is a member of a particular social group at risk of harm because of his membership and presidency of the students organisation. In summary the submissions also refer to the “real chance” test in relation to persecution, together with the concept of “serious harm” and other relevant elements in considering the applicant’s claims under the Refugees convention.

24. The submissions suggest that the applicant would not be able to obtain state protection in Pakistan and refer to various materials and extracts from international reports, media stories and other RRT decisions in relation to the risks of harm in relation to sectarian issues in Pakistan. In summary the submissions also referred to the reasons why it is said that the applicant could not safely relocate within Pakistan and also referred to the applicant’s claims and the basis for consideration for complementary protection under the Migration Act. In conclusion the submissions suggest that the applicant is entitled to protection in Australia.

25. The applicant was interviewed by a Department delegate in relation to his protection visa application.

    TRIBUNAL HEARING

26. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 August 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant produced both his current and expired Pakistani passports. The applicant confirmed his personal details. The applicant confirmed that before coming to Australia he had lived long term in Sialkot in the Punjab region in Pakistan.  He told the Tribunal  he remains in touch with his immediate family in Pakistan . He is married with [children].  He currently works in a [position] with a [company] in [Australia]. He had completed [a tertiary qualification] in Pakistan and had worked for about 10 years in various [companies] in Pakistan.  He told the Tribunal  that he fears harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis that he is a Shia Muslim. He also told the Tribunal he fears harm as a member of a particular social group of Shia Muslims who organise and conduct religious ceremonies and processions and who hold views opposed to the Taliban. He also told the Tribunal he fears harm on the basis of his membership of a particular social group in that he is involved with a Shia student organisation that is involved with both religious and broader social welfare issues in the Shia community in Pakistan. The applicant confirmed that the basis for his claim to fear harm was based around his religion and his religious activities rather than any political aspect.  He also clarified some errors in relation to details in his application. He also told the Tribunal in terms of his extended family in Pakistan that his father is sick and he has [a] brother.

1. He told the Tribunal he fears harm from the Taliban and from  [Mr A] a person associated with  Sibah Sehaba a Sunni extremist organisation ( the SSP). He claimed that group had links to other extremist groups and the applicant feared harm as well on that basis. The applicant told the Tribunal during the hearing that [Mr A] was a member of part of the Taliban and could cause the applicant harm.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan.  He confirmed to the Tribunal the claim that he had made in his statutory declaration in support of his protection visa application that a  Shia procession known as the Moharam Juloos that he had organised [in] November 2013 had been attacked by people who he claimed were involved with a Sunni extremist group called Sunni Tehreek and that one of the attackers ( [Mr B] ) had been shot and killed by a security guard protecting the procession. [Mr B] was the brother of [Mr A], from whom the applicant claims to fear harm. The applicant claimed that the procession had been protected by a small number of police plus private security guards. The applicant claimed that the procession had been attacked by five people on two motorbikes who had come in a different direction to the procession. He claimed that the procession stopped and that the people on the motorbikes fired weapons. He said that an automatic weapon that fired rapidly had been used and that in response one of the security guards had shot one of the people on the bike and that person had died. He also claimed that two people in the procession had been shot and injured and that the injured people had been taken to hospital. He claimed he went to the police station and was arrested. He claimed he was released because witnesses had said to the police that he was not involved in the shooting. He said only one guard had been arrested and that guard was still in jail pending conclusion of the proceedings in relation to the shooting. He told the Tribunal that he had been held by the police on the day of the shooting but had been released that evening.

3. The applicant claimed that there had been incidents during earlier processions and referred to 2009 when he claimed that some people were injured during processions.

4. The Tribunal referred to country information that indicated that the Pakistani authorities in the Punjab had made significant security arrangements for Moharram in 2013. The Tribunal noted that the Department delegate in the record of decision had indicated to the applicant during the interview "that none of the country information available indicated there had been any security incidents in the Sialkot area during Moharran 2013, which was conducted across Punjab largely without incident apart from a riot in Rawalpindi." The Tribunal raised with the applicant that the lack of any media reports in the country information in relation to the applicant's claim that there had been a shooting incident and a person killed during the procession that he had organised did not support the applicant's claims in relation to this incident. The applicant responded by saying that the area where he had lived was too small and remote to attract media attention in relation to the incident. He told the Tribunal that he had not dealt personally with the two [brothers]. but had heard that they were SSP extremists from other members in the student organisation.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had joined the student organisation (Imamia student organisation – ISO) in 2002. He said there were only [number] members in his local group and he had been appointed [an official] of that group in 2012. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the document that had been provided to the Department in relation to his role with the student organisation and that the document was undated. The applicant said that he had obtained that document around March/April 2014. He had ceased being a student in 2006/2007. He said he had joined the organisation because of its broader welfare role in relation to Shia people.

6. The applicant told the Tribunal that his religious activities in Pakistan had been limited to his work with the student organisation and in relation to organising the Moharrem. He said he did not attend a mosque in Pakistan and he had not attended a mosque since he has been in Australia.

7. The Tribunal asked the applicant about specific claims in his statutory declaration which he had made in support of his protection visa application. The applicant had referred to having received threatening telephone calls on the morning of the march on [Date 3] November 2013. He told the Tribunal that he had lodged a complaint with the police on that morning after having received the call and before the procession. He told the Tribunal he was upset about receiving the threatening call but did not take the call all that seriously. He claimed after he was released from the police station in the evening of [Date 3] November that he received a number of threatening telephone calls which he claimed came from [Mr A]. He claims that he was threatened with being killed in the calls.

8. He told the Tribunal that after the shooting incident on [Date 4] November that he had gone to a friend’s place initially and had then waited for his family to arrive and then had gone to another police station to report the shooting incident and also reported the threatening telephone calls. The applicant provided the Department with a first information report surrounding his arrest on [Date 3] November and also a report that he provided to the police in relation to the shooting incident on [Date 4] November together with a report about the threatening telephone calls. Those documents are on the Department file . The applicant claimed that he had then gone to Islamabad with his family and lived with his [relative] for between 10 and 12 days. The applicant in his statutory declaration  said that he had applied for his Visa to come to Australia in October 2013. He told the Tribunal that before he came to Australia he had gone to a hotel that was north of Islamabad and stayed for several days because he said he was feeling depressed. He told the Tribunal that his daughter had been injured and she had been taken to Lahore and remained in hospital for 20 days. He said the injuries to his daughter had been the reason that delayed him travelling to Australia. The applicant said that he had paid for his airline ticket to come to Australia.  He told the Tribunal nothing further had happened to him after [Date 4] November 2013 but that [Mr A] had told the applicant’s brother and some of the applicant’s friends that he would harm the applicant if the applicant returned to Pakistan. The applicant said that he had changed his telephone number after [Date 4] November 2013. He told the Tribunal that there had been no other incidents where he had been harmed or threatened apart from the two incidents that he claimed occurred on [Date 3 and Date 4] of November 2013.

9. He told the Tribunal that since he had been in Australia that [Mr A] had told some of the applicant’s friends he will kill the applicant if he returned from Australia. The applicant said that he remains in contact with his friends but speaks to them infrequently.

10. The applicant was asked why he could not relocate if he feared harm in his local area in Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that he had worked at [Company 2] for about two years before the incident on [Date 3] November 2013 had occurred and in that position he travelled about 120 km from his residence to the [company]. He said that he had told the [company] about the threats that he had received when he had made the move to Islamabad after the incident on [Date 4] November 2013. The applicant claimed that he came from a well-known Shia family and had a “profile” in relation to his work with [Company 2] and that regardless of where he worked for [Company 2] he would be identified because of the profile. He said if he returned to Pakistan that he would try to stay with [Company 2] and would try to relocate but did not know where he would be able to relocate to safely.

11. He told the Tribunal that the only incidents where he had been harmed or threatened in Pakistan had all occurred on [Date 3 and Date 4] of November 2013. He told the Tribunal that he did not believe that he would get effective state protection if he returned to Pakistan because he is not a high-profile leader and that the police have not helped him in the past and he claimed that the Pakistani police were corrupt.

12. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any further issues that he wished to raise relation to his claims. He told the Tribunal that he was at risk because [Mr A] and the SSP were seeking personal revenge against him because of the shooting incident on [Date 3] November 2013 in which he claimed [Mr B] was killed. The applicant claimed that he was also afraid because of the activities of ISIS in Pakistan and also referred to his fear of growing violence in the Punjab. He also claimed that the Taliban could harm him if he returned to Pakistan.

13. The Tribunal raised with the applicant’s country information contained in the DFAT country report for Pakistan dated April 2015. The Tribunal referred to the report indicating that Pakistan had struggled with security threats from terrorist, militant and sectarian groups but the report indicated that because Pakistan is a diverse country there are a number of areas within Pakistan which remain free from violence. The report indicated that urban centres tended to be more secure than rural areas. The report indicated that the most potent security threat in Pakistan remains the mostly Pashtun Taliban insurgency based in the FATA (federally administered tribal areas) and parts of Khyber Paktunkhwa which operates under the banner of the Tehreek –e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). In summary the report indicates that there have been numerous incidents of religious, sectarian and communal violence in Pakistan. The report notes that in some cases sectarian violence has been mutual with both sides acting as belligerents but that the Department assessment is that minority groups are often disproportionately the victims of sectarian violence. The report indicates that despite Pakistani government’s repeated bans of militant groups they remain active across Pakistan, particularly in Karachi, Quetta and southern and central Punjab. The report also indicates that politically motivated violence can occur throughout Pakistan but is most prevalent in Karachi between members of particular organisations and that the security situation in Karachi is volatile and changes over time. The report also indicates that the Department assessment is that there is generally a low level of official discrimination in Pakistan on the basis of religion but that there is a moderate level of societal discrimination and that in most cases people are able to freely practice their religion in a more open fashion in large urban centres rather than in rural areas. The report also indicates that attacks against religious ceremonies and places of worship remain the greatest impediment to freedom of worship in Pakistan.

14. The Tribunal also noted that the country report indicates that the Pakistani Constitution prohibits the use of torture for extracting evidence but that there are credible reports from various sources that torture by police and security forces is widespread.

15. The Tribunal also noted that freedom of movement throughout Pakistan is guaranteed by the Constitution and there are no legal impediments for internal relocation other than to certain gazetted areas. The report indicated that because of Pakistan’s size and diversity that internal relocation offers a degree of anonymity and the opportunity for victims to seek refuge from discrimination or violence. The report indicated that in many cases there are options available for members of most ethnic and religious minorities to relocate to areas of relative safety elsewhere in Pakistan and that many large urban areas such as Lahore and Islamabad are home to mixed ethnic and religious communities. The Report indicated that individuals may be more likely to be able to remain anonymous in large urban centres rather than in rural areas and smaller urban areas particularly if they maintained a low profile.

16. The Tribunal also referred to the DFAT thematic report for Shias in Pakistan dated April 2015. The Tribunal noted that there had been a number of incidents of sectarian violence in Pakistan in 2014 but overall there had been a 35% reduction from the 220 incidents recorded in 2013. The report indicated that in general the Department assessment was that there was a low risk of sectarian violence for Shia’s perpetrated by militant groups in Pakistan. The report indicated that most Shia in day-to-day life face a low risk of sectarian violence but that attacks against Ashura processions pose the greatest risk for most shias but that the Department assessment was that the overall risk is assessed as low given the size and yearly frequency of the processions. The report indicated that the risk of sectarian violence against processions was mitigated by the significant efforts of Pakistani authorities to protect processional routes.

17. The report indicated that the major threat to Shias in Pakistan comes from anti-Shia and militant groups and the report referred to particular groups and including SSP(which had been nominated by the applicant in his claims and has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons). The report indicated that various Pakistani Taliban groups have also claimed a number of attacks on Shias. As indicated the report referred to Ashura processions being a particular target of Sunni militant groups and referred to attacks on processions in 2012 as well as some violence that had broken out during processions in 2013.  The Report also indicated that there  had been infrequent incidents of violence against members of the student organisation (ISO) that the applicant belonged to. The report indicated in relation to the applicant’s claims that Shias lived throughout the Punjab and that there are some areas in the Punjab where tensions between Sunni and Shia populations are more pronounced but that in larger cities there is a higher level of communal integration between the two groups. The report indicates that overall levels of generalised and sectarian violence are lower in Punjab relative to the rest of Pakistan and that according to a credible statistical review sectarian violence has declined in Punjab since the 1990s. The report indicates that militant attacks and tensions between the two groups are generally higher in areas of the Punjab where madrassa and militant networks are strongest and that according to Pakistani journalists harassment of Shias occurs with some frequency often motivated by SSP activists.

18. The report indicated that the Department assessment is that broadly there is a willingness by Pakistani authorities to protect Shia communities and that during Muharram provincial authorities and federal authorities cooperate with local Shia communities to provide security for participants in processions. The report refers to some of the mechanisms that might be implemented during such processions depending on the level of threat and the resources available. The report indicates the Pakistani authorities do face capacity constraints in providing protection and that Shia communities frequently make provision for their own security.  The Report indicates that in relation to internal relocation that in many cases there are options available for members of most ethnic and religious minorities to relocate to areas of relative safety elsewhere in Pakistan. The Department assessment is that because of its size and diversity individuals in Pakistan may be more likely to be able to remain anonymous in large urban centres than in rural areas or smaller urban areas particularly if they maintain a low profile. The report also notes that internal relocation of Shias occurs with relative frequency due to family connections and employment opportunities in these places and notes that in Lahore there are large Shia communities in certain areas.

19. The Tribunal also raised concerns that it had about the applicant’s claims and in relation to the credibility of his claims. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s claims that both the iincidents  that he had referred to had occurred on two days on  [Date 3 and Date 4]  of November 2013. He claims on the first occasion that shots had been fired on people in the procession and people had been wounded and an attacker had been killed and that on the first occasion he had been arrested and then released and that on the next day he was involved in another incident where shots had again been fired. He did not claim that he had been involved in terms of any threats or harm to him on any other occasions. The Tribunal noted that there was no media coverage of the incidents that he claimed had occurred on those days and the applicant was unable to refer the Tribunal to any media or publicity about the incidents that he claimed had occurred on those occasions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not claim that he had any significant religious profile apart from his activities with the student organisation. The Tribunal in those circumstances had concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims that he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal had also referred to its concerns about country information contained in the DFAT country report for Pakistan that indicated that document fraud was widespread in Pakistan and that report indicated by way of example that police issued first information/incident reports are not difficult to fraudulently produce. The applicant had provided the department with a copy of an initial information report which he said had been made after the shooting incident on [Date 3] November 2013 and which had led to his arrest on that day.

20. The applicant’s representative submitted  that the firing of the shots had been an escalation in terms of previous incidents that had occurred during processions. He also queried whether the government in Pakistan might allow a growing influence of militants in the Punjab (presumably because of political affiliations). He also referred to the growth of the Taliban in Pakistan more widely. He also said that in relation to state protection that in Pakistan terrorists had been released in the past and he claimed that there was a connection between the Taliban and the State and he claimed that there was a willingness at government level to protect the Taliban in Pakistan. The representative indicated that the applicant had no other family in Pakistan apart from his family in Islamabad and that the applicant had a sick father and [an unwell] brother. The representative also raised whether it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate elsewhere in Pakistan

21. The Tribunal also referred to information that was contained in the Department delegate’s record of decision in relation to the applicant’s protection Visa application. The Tribunal referred to that information pursuant to s.424AA of the Act. That information would be a reason or part of the reason why the Tribunal would affirm the decision under review. That information is relevant to the Tribunal in considering the applicant’s credibility given concerns raised by the delegate about aspects of the applicant’s claims which are referred to in the delegate’s record of decision. Those concerns relate to a number of key claims by the applicant and are matters that the Tribunal believed were relevant in terms of assessing the applicant’s overall credibility in terms of his claims in the context that the Tribunal may not believe or accept the applicant’s evidence in relation to certain claims. The applicant did not provide any comments or responses to the Tribunal in relation to this issue.

1. The concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims (in the delegate’s record of decision) include the lack of any publicity about the attack the applicant claimed occurred on [Date 3] November 2013 which has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The delegate had also referred to country information that indicated that Pakistani authorities in the Punjab had made significant security arrangements for Moharram in 2013 and that in those circumstances the delegate had considered it “implausible” that a person who had been involved in an attack on a procession which was under police protection would then lodge  an FIR about the security people protecting the procession returning fire in response to the attack on the procession. The delegate had also referred to information in relation to the relationship between Sunni Tehreek and the SSP and that information indicated that the two organisations “are frequently in violent conflict”.

2. The Tribunal allowed until 8 September 2015 for the applicant to provide any comments or responses to the issues raised by the Tribunal

3. The Tribunal received written comments from the applicant and further submissions on his behalf on 8 September 2015.

4. The applicant’s comments referred to a number of the concerns raised by the Tribunal during the hearing. In summary the applicant indicated that the first information reports that he had provided to the Department provided corroborative evidence of those incidents in November 2013. He also restated his claim that because the incidents had occurred in a small town that they occurred with inappropriate security arrangements and without media coverage. He also claimed that Sunni extremists continued to target religious minorities and that the authorities have links with those extremists and that the police force in Pakistan is dominated by Sunni Muslims who tend to support and sympathise with the militants. He claimed that occurred in his case. He claimed that he had a strong affiliation in terms of his religious beliefs and activities in his role as [an official] of the student organisation in his area and that made him a target of extremist activity. He also referred to his claim that the Taliban and ISIS have a presence throughout Pakistan and he also claimed that his role with various [Company 2] had given him a profile which by implication raised his risk. He also claimed that because of his family and including his wider family that it was not possible for him to relocate to other parts of Pakistan. He claimed that he had not been previously targeted by extremists because he had kept a low profile and avoided harm but that he could not continue to conceal his religious activities and because of his education and profile he was encouraged to take a leading position in Shia activities and by taking a lead in those activities he placed himself at risk. He claimed that he had faced “intimidation and harassment before many times” but he had been able to avoid an escalation on earlier occasions “by way of some local arbitration in order to avoid further conflicts” and he had mentioned in his statement in support of his protection Visa application the incidence which “were serious incidents”. He also claimed that the documents that he had provided in support of his case were “genuine in credibility”.

5. The written submissions provided in support of the applicant’s case are  dated 4 September 2015. In summary those submissions refer to a number of media reports and international reports relating to persecution against religious minorities and in particular Shia’s in Pakistan. The submissions also refer to recent reports/statements from “recognised independent sources on persecution against religious minorities and in particular against Shia’s in Pakistan”. The submissions also referred to recent reports and statements involving persecution against Shia intellectuals. The submissions referred to various international reports and including an August 2014 report from the United States commission on International religious freedom in relation to Pakistan. That report indicated “that the Shia Muslim community again bore the brunt of militant and terrorist attacks” in terms of the July 2013 to June 2014 period in Pakistan. Other reports that were referred to in the submissions refer to incidents involving attacks on Shia people or mosques and also referred to a claim that a Pakistani Muslim extremist organisation had announced its support for ISIS. One report referred to a shooting of a Shia religious leader in the Punjab in March 2015. Another report referred to an attack by ISIS on a Shia mosque in southern Pakistan in March 2015. A series of incidents were referred to involving attacks on Shia people in a number of provinces in Pakistan and which resulted in the deaths of a number of people. These attacks appear to have been carried out by extremists on the basis of the materials referred to in the submissions. The submissions in summary also referred to a May 2015 report by the United States commission on International religious freedom and the submissions refer to an extract  from that report that states “Pakistan represents one of the worst situations in the world for religious freedom for countries  not currently designated by the United States government as countries of particular concern”. The report indicates that Pakistan continued to experience chronic sectarian violence against a number of religious minorities in Pakistan and that the Pakistani government failed to provide adequate protection in relation to those issues. In summary the submissions claimed that the various reports and media stories referred to supported claims that members of the Shia religious minority in Pakistan continue to face persecution and that this includes targeted killings and that the Pakistani authorities are either unwilling or unable to stop this activity. The submissions claim that the Taliban and other extremist groups have increased attacks against Shia people. The submissions claim that the reports establish that the Pakistani government is either unable or unwilling to protect the Shia community. The submissions claim that educated Shia people and those Shia people from prominent families are at risk and are targeted and that sectarian violence is widespread throughout Pakistan.  The submissions claim that non Sunni Islamic believers are at risk from hard-line Sunni Muslims and that the Taliban has significant influence within the Pakistan security and military establishments and that Shia people face sectarian cleansing and that various  Sunni extremist religious groups focus their violence on  Shia people and that this is resulted in the deaths of “thousands of Shias”. In summary the submissions claim that Shia people are targeted in a variety of ways in Pakistan and that Shia people are risk of harm in Pakistan and that the harm comes from a variety of  Sunni religious extremist groups and includes a risk of harm from the Taliban and ISIS.

6. The submissions also refer to statements and reports on persecution against educated Shia people and refer to various media stories about attacks on Shia professional people such as medical practitioners and other professionally qualified people. In summary the submissions refer to attacks in particular provinces and in particular cities in Pakistan. In particular the reports refer to numerous attacks in Karachi as well as to attacks in other places including Peshawar and Lahore. The submissions suggest that the information referred to makes it “ clear’ that Shia people like the applicant face a real chance of persecution in Pakistan now and in the foreseeable future. The submissions urge the Tribunal to look at the applicant’s particular circumstances and that the submissions referred to evidence of violence against Shias in major cities in Pakistan and also claimed to have provided “evidence of the current Pakistani government’s and the authorities attitudes towards Shias”. The submissions suggest that the applicant’s imputed political opinion and his religious background and his membership of particular social groups place him at risk of harm and that internal relocation within Pakistan is not a reasonable option for the applicant.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. On the basis of the materials and information provided to the Department and the Tribunal the Tribunal accepts 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 by the applicant 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.

8. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the basis of the evidence and materials before it that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his claims to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is also not satisfied as to the applicant’s credibility in relation to some aspects of his claims and some aspects of his evidence.

9. In summary the applicant claimed to fear harm on the basis that he could be perceived to have a political opinion of being opposed to the Taliban and other extremist groups on the basis of his activities with the Shia based students organization (the ISO). He also claimed to fear harm on the basis that he is a Shia Muslim in Pakistan. He also claimed to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his religious activities based on his activities with the ISO. He also claimed to fear harm on the basis of his membership of a particular social group of people who belong to the ISO. He also claimed during the hearing that he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan because he is a member of another particular social group in that he is a Shia who is well educated and well known and from a wealthy family. The applicant’s evidence was that he had a “profile” in his work with [Company 2] in Pakistan and that he was well known in his area in Pakistan because of that work.

10. In essence all the applicant’s claims are based around his Shia Muslim religious activities or that related profile. He did not claim to the Tribunal that he actually engaged in any political activities( as such) in Pakistan but that his activities with the student organisation (the ISO) involved religious and social welfare activities in the broader  Shia community. He told the Tribunal that he did not attend a mosque in Pakistan and he did not attend at a mosque in Australia.

11. All the applicant’s claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan in terms of his evidence to the Tribunal revolved around claimed incidents that he said occurred on [Date 3 and Date 4] November 2013. He told the Tribunal that while there had been incidents in some earlier religious processions (and he specifically referred to 2009) he did not indicate to the Tribunal that he had been at risk of harm on any other occasion apart from the two days in November 2013. The Tribunal notes that in the written comments and responses provided after the hearing the applicant claimed “I faced intimidation and harassment before many times. However the matter came to acquiescence by way of some local arbitration in order to avoid further conflicts. I mentioned in my statements the incidents which were serious incidents”. The applicant did not claim during the Tribunal hearing that he had been threatened or harmed on any previous occasions.

12. The applicant claimed to the Tribunal that he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan from the Taliban, [Mr A] (Sunni Tehreek) and the SSP. He had during the hearing also referred to the spread of ISIS in Pakistan and he feared harm on that basis.

13. The applicant’s evidence about what he claimed occurred on [Date 3 and Date 4] November 2013 has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The applicant claimed that there was no media coverage of the events because the town where the incidents had occurred was too small and did not attract media coverage on that basis. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant’s district of [District 1] is a district of Sialkot in the Punjab.

14. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and his evidence and the relevant country information contained in the DFAT reports that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal has also considered the submissions that have been made on behalf of the applicant.

15. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and his evidence about the events on [Date 3 and Date 4] of November 2013. The applicant, in summary, claimed that he had received a threatening telephone call on the morning of the procession on [Date 3] November and that he had reported that threat to the police on that morning. He claimed that the procession had proceeded and the procession had been attacked by people on two motorbikes and that the attack involved people firing rapidfire/automatic weapons at people participating in the procession. The procession had been protected by police and private security guards. One of the private security guards had returned fire on the attackers and one of the attackers had been killed. The applicant claimed two people in the procession had also been wounded. The applicant claimed that as result the brother of the person who had been killed by the security guard had filed a first information report with the police alleging that the applicant and the security guards were responsible for his brother’s death. The applicant claimed that he had gone to the police station and been arrested and detained and questioned in relation to the first information report and  had been released when other people had come forward to say that the applicant was not involved in the shooting. He claimed he was released later on the evening/night of [Date 3] November 2013. He claimed he received threatening telephone calls after he had been released accusing him of having been responsible for the death of [Mr B] (the person shot by the security guard) when he had been attacking the procession. He then claimed that on the morning of [Date 4] November 2013 he had been driving his car when he’d been attacked by four people riding two motorbikes who had fired at him but he had managed to escape. He claimed this attack was because of the shooting on the previous day. He produced to the Department a first information report said to have been filed with the police and accusing him of having been involved in the shooting of [Mr B]. That report was said to have been filed by [Mr A] (a person the applicant claims to fear harm from and the brother of the deceased attacker). The document claims to have been filed with the police at 12 PM on [Date 3] November 2013 (the day of the procession).

16. The applicant claimed after he escaped from the shooting he went to a friend’s place and waited for his family and then went to a police station to report the shooting and got his family and went to Islamabad to live with his [relative]. He produced to the Department what he  said was a copy of a document that he had provided to the police reporting the shooting incident on [Date 4] November and also the threatening telephone calls that had occurred after he had been released by the police on [Date 3] November 2013. The applicant did not claim that any other harm or incidents had occurred to him after the shooting incident on [Date 4] November.

17. The Tribunal has considered the country information contained in the DFAT reports for Pakistan that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The information in those reports indicates that in general the Department assessment is that there is a low risk of sectarian violence for Shias perpetrated by militant groups in Pakistan. The report indicates broadly that most Shias face a low risk of sectarian violence in day-to-day life and that the Department assessment is that while the processions pose the greatest risk for most Shias the overall risk is thought to be low given the size and yearly frequency of the processions. The DFAT thematic report for Shias in Pakistan dated 14 April 2015 in discussing terrorist attacks on Shia people refers to violence having broken out between Sunnis and Shias in  Rawalpindi during Ashura in 2013 which then spilled over to other parts of the country. The report indicates that  Ashura processions have been a particular target of  Sunni militant groups .That report in discussing the Punjab indicates that overall levels of generalised and sectarian violence are lower in the Punjab relative to the rest of Pakistan and that militant attacks and tensions between sects are generally greater in areas of the Punjab where  Madrassa and militant networks are strongest. The report refers to particular places in the southern Punjab and Gunjanwala and parts of Rawalpindi in the northern Punjab where risks are higher than in the rest of the Punjab. The report also indicates that there have been infrequent incidents of violence against members of the student organization (the ISO). The Tribunal accepts that the two DFAT reports in relation to Pakistan that have been referred to in these reasons provide recent and credible information relevant to the applicant’s claims.

18. The Tribunal notes the country information referred to in the Department delegate’s decision which indicated “that none of the country information available indicated that there had been any security incidents in the Sialkot area during Moharram 2013 which was conducted across Punjab largely without incident apart from a riot in Rawalpindi” (see delegates decision page 10). The delegates decision record also refers to country information that indicates “that Moharram juloos in [District 1] have received Pakistani media attention previously” (see page 10 delegates record of decision). That note appears in response to the applicant’s claim that [District 1] is too small a district to attract media attention. The written submissions provided by the applicant’s representative refer to numerous incidents in a variety of places in Pakistan but none of those reports refer to the particular incidents that the applicant claims occurred on [Date 3 and Date 4] November 2013. The DFAT  Thematic report that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons indicates in discussing the 2014 figures that there were 220 incidents of sectarian violence recorded in 2013 and that those figures include attacks against members of all religions and religious sects. Shias represent a higher proportion of those attacked and killed and that in 2014 more than half of the 141 attacks were against that community.

19. The DFAT Thematic report also indicates that the major threat to Shias in Pakistan comes from anti Shia and militant groups and the report refers to the SSP as being one of those groups. The Tribunal notes the Department delegate having referred to country information that indicates that Sunni Tehreek (the organisation which the applicant claimed [Mr A] was associated with) had often been in “violent conflict” with the SSP (contrary to the applicant’s claims that the two organisations were associated-see delegates record of decision pages 11 and 12).

20. As indicated the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and his evidence and the relevant country information which has been referred to and the written submissions made on the applicant’s behalf. The Tribunal has also considered its assessment of the applicant’s credibility in relation to his claims. The written submissions as indicated refer to a significant number of reports of events involving apparent sectarian violence. Those reports indicate to the Tribunal that there is extensive coverage of sectarian based violence in Pakistan. In those circumstances it would be reasonable for the Tribunal to believe that an incident that the applicant described as having occurred on [Date 3] November 2013 would have received some media coverage or in some way to have been reported publicly. There was no media coverage or reporting of the incident that the applicant was able to refer to before the Tribunal. The country information and the applicant’s evidence indicates that Pakistani authorities provide some protection where possible to Muharram processions. The applicant referred to a small number of police being involved in protecting the procession on [Date 3] November as well as private security guards. The applicant’s evidence is the procession was attacked by people firing rapidfire or automatic weapons. An attacker was claimed to be killed and two people injured in the attack. The Tribunal believes that it would be reasonable to expect an incident of that nature given the heightened security concerns around these processions would have received some media or publicity if an attack had occurred and having regard to the numerous incidents that have been referred to in the written submissions. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims that the brother of the attacker reported the incident to the police and that the applicant was subsequently detained and questioned about the incident before he was released. The Tribunal has considered the credibility of the applicant’s claims in this regard. The Tribunal does not accept as credible that the applicant would have been detained and questioned in circumstances where the applicant was involved in a procession which was receiving police protection and which was attacked by people carrying rapidfire weapons and where one of the attackers was killed. There was no suggestion that the applicant was involved in firing weapons.

1. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s evidence about the sequence of events that he claimed occurred on [Date 3 and Date 4] November 2013. The Tribunal notes that the first information report purported to be filed at 12 PM on [Date 3] November 2013. The applicant claimed that he had already complained to the police about a threatening phone call earlier on that date. He claimed the procession had occurred and the shooting had occurred and a person had been killed and a first information report had all occurred before 12 PM. He claimed that he was arrested and detained and questioned but had been released later on the night of [Date 3] November. There was no suggestion that the applicant had been involved in firing weapons on that occasion. He claimed by 7 AM on [Date 4] November he was driving in his car when he was attacked by four people on two motorbikes. He escaped without injury.  He claimed shots had been fired at him but he had escaped without injury on that occasion. He claimed before that he had received several threatening telephone calls in relation to the claim shooting on [Date 3] November 2013. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and the claimed sequence and timing of events and the claimed series of events on [Date 3 and Date 4] November 2013. The Tribunal does not believe that the applicant’s claims about these events are credible. The Tribunal’s overall assessment is that the applicant is not a credible witness.

2. The Tribunal does not accept that it is credible that [Mr A] would have complained to the police in the circumstances referred to by the applicant and where the police were providing protection to the procession which was attacked. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that [Mr A] was associated with Sunni Tehreek and that organisation was associated with the SSP. The DFAT Thematic report refers to SSP as being one of those organisations that has been designated as a terrorist organisation in Pakistan and that as a result that organisation and others have come under increased scrutiny by Pakistani authorities and that scrutiny has resulted in a number of arrests of leaders and activists. In those circumstances the Tribunal does not accept that it would be credible that [Mr A] would be lodging a complaint to the police about the claimed shooting on [Date 3] November 2013 and in which he claimed that his deceased brother “was associated with the Sunni movement”. The Tribunal after having considered all the circumstances does not accept that the applicant was detained and questioned about the shooting incident on [Date 3] November 2013. The Tribunal does not accept that it is credible that the applicant would have been able to escape without injury from the claimed shooting incident on [Date 4] November 2013 where he claimed his car was attacked by four people on two motorbikes. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that the procession was attacked on [Date 3] November 2013 as he claimed. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that he received a threatening telephone call before the procession on [Date 3] November 2013. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant received several threatening telephone calls after his claimed release on [Date 3] November 2013. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that his car was attacked on the morning of [Date 4] November 2013 by 4 people who fired on his vehicle. The lack of any media publicity in relation to the claimed attack on [Date 3] November 2013, in all the circumstances, supports the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the applicant’s claims. The available and relevant country information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons also supports the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the applicant’s claims. The first information reports provided to the department and available to Tribunal and which have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons have been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal raised with the applicant during the hearing it’s concerns about the prevalence of forged documents in Pakistan and the Tribunal notes in particular that the DFAT country report for  Pakistan dated April 2015 notes in relation to document fraud that police issued FIR’s are not difficult to fraudulently produce and that the existence of an FIR does not in itself confirm that the events in the FIR took place. The applicant in responding after the hearing to those concerns said that the documents that he had provided “are genuine credibility”. The Tribunal having regard to those documents and in particular the document purporting to deal with the events of [Date 3] November 2013 together with its assessment of the applicant’s credibility and the evidence does not place any evidentiary weight on those documents. The Tribunal also does not accept the applicant’s claims that his brother and friends have received threats directed at the applicant since the applicant has been in Australia.

3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was involved with the Imamia student organisation (the ISO). The applicant claimed that he was attracted to membership of that organisation because of its activities in terms of religious and social welfare in the broader  Shia community. The applicant provided a document to the Department which indicated the range of activities that the applicant had been involved in with that organization. He told the Tribunal that organisation in [District 1] only had [number] members and he had been elected [an official] of that group in 2012. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that in that role the applicant had been involved in organizing Muharram processions. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that the procession in November 2013 was attacked as he claimed.

4. As indicated the applicant was not involved, according to his evidence, in any other religious activities in terms of duties associated with any mosque.He did not claim that he was involved in any broader political activities apart from his activities with the student organisation and he claimed those activities had no political aspect. He said in discussing the possibility of state protection that he was not a high profile leader and police had not helped him in the past. The Tribunal had indicated to the applicant its concerns about the applicant’s claims on the basis that he did not appear to the Tribunal to have a religious or political profile (apart from the student organization) that would place him at risk of harm in terms of country information. That country information contained in the DFAT thematic report indicates that there is a moderate risk of sectarian violence for the leaders of both Shia and Sunni militant and political groups. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant’s role as [an official] of a student group with [number] members does not indicate to the Tribunal that the applicant has a risk profile in accordance with available country information. The applicant’s other evidence about his profile related to his role with various [Company 2] and where he indicated that he was known because of that work in places in the Punjab. That evidence arose in terms of the applicant addressing the possibility of relocating within Pakistan to avoid any risk of harm in his immediate home area. The Tribunal does not accept in accordance with available country information that the applicant is at risk of harm because of any “profile” that he may have developed or obtained because of his work with [Company 2] in the Punjab. That work does not appear to have any religious or imputed political aspect. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his claim of his profile with the student organisation or with [Company 2] and does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of this claim should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The evidence before the Tribunal did not indicate that the applicant had any difficulties in his previous work with [Company 2] and that included working in different [sections] and also travelling a reasonably significant distance each day from his home in the position that he held before coming to Australia. The applicant suggested to the Tribunal that his profile within the [Company 2] placed him at risk of harm but as indicated he did not claim that he had ever faced any harm in that employment in the past. The Tribunal is not aware of any reasons why the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of the profile aspect should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

5. The Tribunal notwithstanding its findings about the applicant’s claims and its assessment of his credibility has also considered whether the applicant could avoid a real chance of serious harm by relocating in Pakistan. The available country information which has been referred to elsewhere in terms of the DFAT country report for Pakistan and the Thematic report for Shias in Pakistan indicate that relocation can be an option for people seeking a refuge from discrimination or violence and that includes Shia people. The applicant indicated, as did submissions filed on his behalf, that relocation was not a viable option for him because of his family situation. He also claimed that he could not relocate because he had developed a profile through his work with [Company 2] and that he did not have relatives anywhere else in Pakistan except in Islamabad. He claimed in those circumstances that he would face “real practical difficulties” in moving to other parts of Pakistan. The written submissions made on the applicant’s behalf also claim that internal relocation “is not a reasonable option in our applicant’s case”.

6. In summary that claim is based around what is described as the applicant’s particular circumstances and it is suggested that the applicant would face harsh discrimination, violence and serious harm if he tried to relocate. The submissions refer to the materials provided on the applicant’s behalf which it is said indicates the risk of harm to the applicant from Sunni extremists and that includes claimed violence against Shias in major cities in Pakistan. The submissions also claim that there is country information that indicates the Pakistani authorities inability or unwillingness to protect Shia people in Pakistan. The Tribunal has considered these issues in terms of the possibility of the applicant relocating within Pakistan if he fears harm in the area from which he came in terms of [District 1] of Sialkot. The applicant has been able to maintain his employment in the [industry] since he came to Australia. He claimed to have had a successful career with [Company 2] in Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that in his most recent job in Pakistan [was] based about 120 km away from where he lived. That indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant was prepared to travel for work purposes. He did not claim to the Tribunal that he had had any difficulty in working in Pakistan in the [industry] or in travelling to his employment. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons the applicant’s only claim that he faced harm relates to the claimed events on [Date 3 and Date 4] November 2013. The Tribunal notes that the country information contained in the relevant DFAT reports that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons indicates that because of Pakistan’s size and diversity internal relocation offers a degree of anonymity and that in many cases there are options available for members of most ethnic and religious minorities, including Shias, to relocate to where areas of relative safety elsewhere in Pakistan. The applicant told the Tribunal that after the incident on [Date 4] November 2013 he had moved with his immediate family to Islamabad. The Tribunal accepts the relevant country information contained in the two DFAT reports in relation to Pakistan that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and the submissions that have been made on his behalf that he could not relocate elsewhere in Pakistan to avoid harm but the Tribunal believes that the relevant country information that has been referred to in the two DFAT reports indicates that relocation would be a viable and alternative option for the applicant if he faced harm in [District 1] in Sialkot should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. As indicated the applicant has on a previous occasion relocated with his family for a short period to Islamabad where the applicant has family connections. He did not indicate that his family had any difficulties during that time, other than the accident that injured his daughter. The applicant’s employment history indicates that he has been successful in being able to find employment within the [sector] in Pakistan and in Australia and the Tribunal is not aware of any reason why he would not be able to pursue that employment again if he should return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal also considers that the applicant’s activities with the ISO that he has described in his evidence to the Tribunal do not give the applicant a risk profile consistent with country information of a moderate risk of sectarian violence for leaders of both Shia and Sunni militant and political groups. The applicant in his evidence said that he was not a high profile leader. In those circumstances the Tribunal considers that if the applicant returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future and engaged in similar activities to the activities that he described in his evidence to the Tribunal regarding the ISO that he would not be at risk of a real chance of serious harm on the basis of that type of activity. The applicant told the Tribunal in a written document after the hearing that he had not been previously targeted by extremists because he kept a low profile but claimed that he could not continue to conceal his religious activities due to his education and profile as an educated Shia. In those circumstances the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant, if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, may engage in similar activities to the activities he described to the Tribunal in the student organization. However as indicated and for the reasons that have already been considered and discussed the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would be at risk of a real chance of serious harm on the basis of that level and type of activity that he described to the Tribunal. The relevant and credible  DFAT Country information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons does not support the applicant’s claims to have a well-founded fear of harm on this basis.

7. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal after having considered the applicant’s claims and the evidence and the available country information and the submissions made on his behalf together with its assessment of his credibility does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his claims should he return to Pakistan, either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept on the basis of the evidence and the applicant’s claims and the available relevant country information that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his claims that he faces harm because he is a Shia Muslim living in Pakistan. The relevant  DFAT country information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons does not support the applicant’s claims in this regard. The Tribunal does not accept on the basis of the evidence, the applicant’s claims and the available country information that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis that he is a member of a particular social group of Shia Muslim people involved in a student organisation that organises  Shia religious processions and could be imputed to have a political opinion of being opposed to the Taliban on that basis. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis that he is a member of a particular social group who are members of the  Shia student organization (the ISO) and also does not accept that the applicant is at risk of a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his claim of membership of a particular social group of wealthy and educated Shia people in Pakistan. The country information and evidence that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons does not support the applicant’s claims that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on this basis should return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The country information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons does not support the applicant’s claims that membership of the ISO places the applicant at a real chance of serious harm on that basis should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. That information (contained in the DFAT Thematic report on Shias in Pakistan dated April 2015) indicates that there have been infrequent incidents of violence against members of the ISO. That report also indicates that broadly DFAT assesses that there is a willingness by Pakistani authorities to protect Shia communities. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution or faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his claims should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a refugee.

8. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims in terms of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the basis of the evidence that has been considered and discussed 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 the applicant would face significant harm. 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 s.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 a 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 s.5(1) of 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 s.5(1) which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. 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

9. 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).

1. 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).

2. 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

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

   James Jolliffe
   Member