1416692 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a citizen of Pakistan, who claimed to be of Hazara ethnicity and a Shia Muslim. The applicant arrived in Australia by boat in June 2012, having departed Pakistan in January 2012. He alleged that his brother was killed in Quetta in 2009 by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), and that he and his family subsequently received death threats from LeJ. The applicant further claimed that Pakistani authorities were unwilling and unable to provide protection, and that he feared persecution, torture, and death if returned to Pakistan due to his ethnicity, religion, and family connection to his deceased brother. The case was before the Tribunal for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, which relates to well-founded fears of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), the complementary protection criterion. The complementary protection criterion requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider policy guidelines and country information assessments prepared by relevant government departments, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 56.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding persecution by LeJ and other militant groups, his fear of harm due to his Hazara ethnicity and Shia Muslim faith, and the alleged lack of protection from Pakistani authorities. It also noted the applicant's assertion that he would be accused of supporting the West if returned as a failed asylum seeker. However, the decision focused on the specific criteria for a Protection visa. The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied section 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa and satisfied section 36(2)(a) or (aa).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, as the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.