1419453 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3958

1419453 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3958 (30 May 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1419453

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:James Jolliffe

DATE:30 May 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 30 May 2016 at 12:16pm

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] June 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] November 2014. The applicant lodged a protection Visa initially in March 2014 but that was found to be invalid and the applicant then lodged a protection Visa [in] June 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 May 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.

   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 and relevant information from a variety of sources.

10. The issue in this case is the applicant claims to fear harm from a religious Mullah or Mullahs and the Taliban if he returned to Pakistan. He also claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of the general level of violence in Pakistan. He also claimed to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality. He told the Tribunal during the hearing that his core claim to fear harm was based on his sexuality.

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 lodged in June 2014 the applicant claimed that he had been born in Karachi in Syndh in Pakistan on [date]. He claimed to be of the Muslim faith. He claimed to be able to speak, read and write both English and Urdu. He claimed never to have been married. He claimed to have no right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Pakistan. He claimed to have arrived in Australia [in] February 2012. He first entered Australia on a student Visa which was issued in January 2011. That these are was valid until [May] 2012. The applicant returned to Pakistan in January 2012 and return to Australia in February 2012. The applicant claimed to have been educated in Pakistan in schools between [year] and 2004 and to have studied at home between 2005 and December [year]. He described his occupation as [occupation] and claimed to have worked in that role from September 2007 to September 2010 in Pakistan. In documentation provided in support of his protection Visa application he said his mother and father and [siblings] continue to live in Pakistan. In support of his protection Visa application he provided a copy of his passport together with media articles and a photograph and a copy of his school certificate and a copy of his national identification card from Pakistan.

13. In his statement in support of his protection Visa application the applicant referred to (in summary) to a number of media reports and these included the death of a police officer who was killed when travelling in a convoy that was attacked by the Pakistani Taliban. That attack occurred in 2011. The applicant also referred to a suicide attack in Pakistan that killed a number of people including a judge. That incident appears to have occurred in March 2014. The applicant also referred in his statement to peace talks that were taking place between the Pakistani government and the Taliban as having collapsed following upon the execution of 23 Pakistani soldiers who were executed by the Taliban and that incident appears to have occurred in February 2014. The applicant also referred to the death of an academic who was killed by unknown gunmen in Karachi. There was a further article dealing with the deaths of the frontier corp soldiers as well as a report about a person who was convicted in relation to the killing of an American reporter as well as a report regarding a bomb attack on a Pakistani cinema in Peshawar. The applicant made reference to other attacks and to reports that the American administration was continuing to use drones to carry out strikes in Pakistan on terrorists. The applicant also referred to media suggesting that the Pakistani Taliban and had warmed of revenge attacks following upon a US drone strike killing its leader in Pakistan. The applicant referred to a press releas from Amnesty International in February 2014 regarding the disappearance of an anti-drone activist in Pakistan who had disappeared. The applicant also referred to a media report in relation to United States diplomats being evacuated from Lahore because of fears of attacks by militants and also warning United States citizens not to travel to Pakistan. That report was dated August 2013.

14. The applicant in his statement then referred to his particular circumstances. He referred to his background of having been born and having lived in Karachi. He referred in summary to his father having worked in a [company] and that when his father retired his brothers looked after the family. He said his [brother] had a business dealing with [details deleted] and that his other brothers also worked in that company. The applicant claimed the family had not had any financial difficulties up until he claimed the Pakistani Taliban known as TTP “started to interfere in our daily lives”. The applicant claimed that his family was a religious family. He claimed to have had a privileged life when he was a student. He claimed after he completed grade [level] studies he started to study from home and that he was being advised by his [brother] so that he would be useful when he joined the family business. He claimed that his [brother] wanted him to study at home so that he would concentrate on his studies and complete grade [level]. The applicant claimed that the Taliban and other militant groups were targeting youths in Karachi in order to “brainwash them against the USA and UN war on terror in North West Frontier province”.

15. The applicant claimed that many of his friends had joined Maddrasse schools but his brothers refused to allow him to join those schools. He claimed that the Mullahs had spoken to his brothers in an effort to have the applicant attend a Maddrasse school and that his brothers then provided financial support to the Mullah in an effort to have the mullah leave the applicant alone. He claimed his brothers were opposed to “Taliban infiltration”. The applicant claimed that the mullah kept contacting him when the applicant visited the mosque. The applicant claimed he tried to avoid the mullah and that the mullah had complained to his brothers that the applicant had been discouraging his friends from joining the madras school. He claimed the mullah insisted that the applicant join the school but his brothers insisted that the applicant join their business and start to work with them. The applicant claimed he joined the business as a trainee. The applicant claimed that he did not show much interest in the work of the business and that some of his friends had told the mullah that he was not taking his career seriously. The applicant claimed the mullah had come to the family home and complained to the applicant’s father and brothers that the applicant was wasting his time and that he should be sent to the maddrasse school for training and to learn the scripture. The applicant claimed the mullah wanted him to attend the school after working hours.

16. The applicant claimed that when he attended the madras school he had to become involved in hard physical exercises and he declined to be involved. The applicant claimed that his family had ordered the mullah to leave the applicant alone. He claimed that the mullah arranged for three local Taliban militants to abduct him and that he was taken to a remote area and held and was severely beaten for disrespecting the mullah. He claimed that he was told that he would be taken away and forced to engage in military exercises with militants in order to serve in the military force. He claimed he remained out of fear that he would be assaulted. He claimed that the militants told him that they were looking for youths who are wasting their time and that they would be trained as militants to fight for jihad. The applicant claimed that he told the militants that he had to work for a family business and the militants said that they would continue to be watching the applicant and that if he was wasting his time and money then he would be taken away for training. He claimed that he was kept for nearly three weeks and that he was only released after his brothers paid money. He claimed he told his brothers that the mullah was behind his abduction and he was then reprimanded by his [brother] for damaging the family business. He said that he was then to work full-time in the family business. The applicant claimed that he couldn’t concentrate on his work and his brother threatened to send him overseas. He claimed his father threatened to put him in the army. He claimed he stopped meeting friends and started to work harder. He claimed he spoke to his brother and that his brother told him that if he wanted to study further and obtain a degree he would be supported and sent to different countries in the Middle East to work for the company. He claimed his brother said that he would arrange to find out where the applicant could undertake further study overseas. In summary the applicant claimed a decision was made for him to study in Australia and he remained working in the family business pending arrangements to take up study opportunities in Australia. In summary he claimed that he was able to obtain work in the family business for friends of his who had been studying at the Madrasse. He named one of those friends as [Mr A]. He claimed that he would drive with that friend to [do work] outside Karachi. He claimed on one of those occasions in late September 2010 he was stopped by the same militants who had previously abducted him and that he and his friend [Mr A] were beaten on that occasion. He claimed that his friend was beaten because he had left the maddrasse school to take on employment with the applicant’s family’s business. He claimed that he was warned by the militants that he should be ready to go for military training to the north-western Frontier province.

17. The applicant claimed that he then told his brother about what happened and arrangements were made for the applicant to come to Australia. He claimed that the militants visited the family home and complained about the applicant taking students from the school and telling students to leave the school. He claimed that the militants had said that many students had been seen travelling in the family’s trucks and car and not attending the school. The applicant claimed the militants wanted to take him so that all his friends would come back to the school. The applicant claimed that his brother told the militants that the applicant was studying overseas and that he would work overseas once he had finished his studies. He claimed that the militants told his brothers that they had been ordered to take the applicant for military training if he was caught. The applicant claimed that he was then worried after his brother told him about what happened and that he was unable to concentrate on his studies in Australia. He decided that he wanted to return to Pakistan because of his problems with his studies and he wanted to return. He said that the militants were no longer searching for him and that his parents told him that he would be sent to the Middle East to work for the family.

18. He claimed that when he arrived in Pakistan in January 2012 he’d asked his brother to arrange accommodation in [Country 1] for him so that he could work for the family company. He said he continued to work with his brother in Pakistan until arrangements were made for him to go to [Country 1]. He referred in his statement to visiting the mosque with his brothers and he met his friend [Mr A] again who told him that he should not stay in Karachi as a Mullah had been asking about the applicant. In summary the applicant claimed that he and [Mr A] were going to travel to the Middle East and that the applicant was making arrangements to obtain a Visa for he and his friend. He claimed that he and his friend were then fired upon by the “same militants” and that his friend was shot. The applicant said he was taken to the police station and was told by the police that the applicant had made “a grave mistake” in taking [Mr A] out of the mosque. He claimed the police said they could not protect him and advised him to leave Pakistan immediately. He claimed the police told him that the mullah wanted the police to hand the applicant over to him. The applicant then claimed that arrangements were made for him to come to Australia again. He claimed when he returned to Australia he was depressed and did not tell anyone about his fear of Taliban militants. He claimed his brothers told him not to tell anyone about the Taliban shooting incident because it could affect his studies in Australia and he could be sent back to Pakistan and he would be killed by the militants. He claimed he was fearful of telling anyone about this incident. The applicant spoke about the cancellation of his student Visa and the appeal/review process and also claimed that he had spoken to his brother about the applicant going to work in [Country 1]. He claimed that he feared being returned to Pakistan as he believed he would be killed and he then referred to apply for a protection Visa in Australia. The applicant referred to a number of news articles which he said were relevant to his claims and that he asked to be taken into consideration in assessing his claims. Some of those media articles have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal’s overall assessment of the media articles is that they relate mainly to terrorist and militant attacks and incidents and violent incidents and attacks in Pakistan and that the majority of the media articles, some of which are very brief in nature, and which appear to have been downloaded from the Internet, relate to events in 2014 in Pakistan. Some of the articles can be described as background information and material in relation to violent incidents in Pakistan.

19. The applicant was interviewed by Department delegate in relation to his protection Visa application. The delegate declined to grant the applicant a protection Visa and was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations to the applicant. A copy of the delegate’s decision record was provided with the application for a review.

    TRIBUNAL HEARING

20. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 May 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was not represented before the Tribunal. An interpreter in the Urdu language was available at the hearing but the applicant chose to give evidence in the English language. He occasionally made use of the interpreter.

21. The applicant confirmed his name and personal details. He told the Tribunal that he was of the Sunni Muslim faith. He confirmed that he first arrived in Australia on a student Visa in February 2011. He said he had enrolled in a [ course] in Australia but had only completed the first semester of that course and had then gone on holidays and returned to Pakistan in January 2012. He did not resume any studies after he returned from Pakistan in February 2012. He confirmed that he had initially applied for a protection VISA in March 2014 but that was invalid and he subsequently applied for a protection Visa in June 2014. He confirmed his claims for seeking protection in Australia. He initially said that he was seeking protection on the basis of his religious beliefs and he feared harm from Mullahs and the Taliban on that basis and he also feared harm on the basis of the general level of violence in Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that his father was deceased and that he has occasional contact with his mother in Pakistan and with one of his sisters and that he also speaks occasionally to one of his brothers who lives with his mother and his wife. He said he had had no contact with his [other] brothers in Pakistan for a couple of years. He said his last contact with his family in Pakistan was about six months ago. He said he was working in [an] industry in Australia and worked in a  [workplace] in Sydney. He said he had undertaken [work] in the family business in Pakistan. He provided the Tribunal with his Pakistani passport. The applicant during the hearing withdrew some of his claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan and he told the Tribunal that he did not fear harm from the Mullahs or the Taliban.

1. At the hearing the applicant provided a new statement which he signed and dated on 12 May 2016. He told the Tribunal that he was also seeking protection in Australia on the basis of his sexuality. He claimed to be homosexual. He told the Tribunal he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan on that basis. He told the Tribunal that he lives with a friend in Australia and he said that even though he has sexual relations with that person he did not regard that person as his partner. The applicant said that he also has occasional sexual contact with two other friends in Australia. He said he was not in a permanent relationship with anyone in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he had not engaged in any overt gay lifestyle activities for two years after he came to Australia. He claimed that in 2013 he had met a friend who was gay who had introduced him in 2014 to 2 other gay people. The Tribunal overall found the applicant's evidence to be very vague in relation to responding to questions about how he pursued a gay lifestyle and pursued his sexuality in Australia since he had come to Australia. He did not indicate to the Tribunal that he pursued an openly gay lifestyle in Australia other than his claims that he had occasional sexual contact with a small group of friends. The Tribunal's overall assessment of the applicant's evidence about his sexuality claim is that it lacked any significant detail and he was overall vague in discussing his claims in relation to this issue.

2. The Tribunal found it difficult to get the basis of the applicant’s claims to fear harm in terms of his original claims in relation to fearing harm from the Mullahs and the Taliban because of his religious beliefs. He told the Tribunal that this claim included social aspects as well as religious beliefs. He confirmed that he was afraid of the general level of violence if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not previously claimed to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality. He had not made this claim in his statement in support of his protection Visa application. The Tribunal noted this was a very late claim in terms of the applicant’s protection Visa history. The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not tell the delegate about this claim because he did not feel confident about the issues. In responding to Tribunal questions about this claim he said he thought he had to show that he was in a relationship to claim a fear of harm on this basis.

3. He told the Tribunal that he had not been involved in politics in Pakistan other than when he was in high school and he would accompany friends in supporting student organisations or the student arm of a political party which he called MQM. He said his family was not involved in politics in Pakistan. In terms of his religious activities he said he engaged in doing “basic” things in terms of his religious activities in Australia and said that he attends the mosque but is not particularly strict in following his religious activities.

4. He told the Tribunal that he had dropped out of university in Pakistan and the Tribunal understood that he had essentially just enrolled in university but not undertaken studies. He said he then continued to be at home in Pakistan and worked at various times in the family business and went out with friends and was waiting to come to Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims in his statement in support of his protection Visa application. The Tribunal asked about the claim that the Taliban had interfered with the family. The Tribunal found that the applicant struggled to explain this claim. He then told the Tribunal that there had been discussions in his local community or society about his sexuality. The Tribunal noted that there had been no mention in his statement in support of his application of his sexuality. The Tribunal found it difficult to get details from the applicant about the claims that his sexuality was an issue that was discussed in his local community. He told the Tribunal that he had attended a Madrasse religious school for about two or three hours each day but when questioned by the Tribunal about aspects of his claims in his statement he said that some aspects of his claims were exaggerated. In essence he told the Tribunal that the Mullahs were trying to get him to change his sexuality.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claims in his initial statement. The applicant said that an agent had prepared the statement and that he had not told the agent about his sexuality claims. The Tribunal found it difficult to get details from the applicant about the preparation of his initial statement. He told the Tribunal that the claims about fearing harm from the Taliban had been exaggerated. He said that the complaints from the Mullah that he had referred to in his statement were complaints about his sexuality and not about his work activities and work focus as he had claimed. He told the Tribunal that it was not militants who had complained about him to his parents and his family but that the complaints had come from other members of Pakistani society and that he was seen as a bad influence on his friends. The Tribunal raised its concerns about the vague nature of the applicant’s evidence in terms of responding to Tribunal questions about his claims and the claims in his initial statement. He eventually told the Tribunal that he had not been forced to undertake exercises or martial arts training.

6. He said that people in his local community or local society had complained to his parents about him being a bad influence for their children but that was based on his sexuality. He was asked further questions about his claims in his statement and said that he did not know about who had abducted him or if the mullah was involved in that abduction . He said he did not know if the Taliban  were involved in his abduction and he did not know who abducted him . He said he was held for two days and his brother paid a ransom of between [amount] and Rs.[amount] rupees to the people who had abducted him . He said he was not beaten or mistreated by the people who abducted him. He said there had been no mention of him being forced to undergo military training by the abductors. He said there had been no mention of the  Mullah by his abductors. He said he was about [age] or [age] when he was abducted and that he had been waiting for a friend when he had been abducted and that the people who took him had their faces covered and he became unconscious and he did not know where he was being held. The Tribunal noted the significant variations between the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal and the claims that had been made in his original statement in support of his protection Visa application. The applicant told the Tribunal that his abduction had not been reported to the police in Pakistan. He also told the Tribunal that he had never obtained a Visa to travel to [Country 1].

7. He told the Tribunal that he had never really worked full-time in the family business and that he had told his brother he wanted to leave Pakistan.

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant about how he pursued a gay lifestyle in Karachi. He said he had confided in one of his friends that he was gay but that he had not been overt in following a gay lifestyle when he lived in Pakistan. The applicant's evidence also included a claim that he had been in a gay relationship with two  friends for a brief period in Pakistan. He said those relationships were sexual relationships and that they had lasted for between one and three months. He said he did not attend any gay meeting places in Pakistan. The Tribunal overall found the applicant's evidence about his claims regarding how he conducted his life in Pakistan in terms of his sexuality to be vague and did not include any significant detail. He provided very few details to the Tribunal in relation to this issue. He said he came to Australia because no one knew him in Australia and he did not think he would have problems if he came to Australia (because of his sexuality). He told the Tribunal that he was not very overt in pursuing a gay lifestyle in Australia and that he did not belong to any gay organisations and he did not frequent gay clubs in Australia.

9. He was asked about the claim in his original statement that he had recruited friends to join the family business and that he had upset a Mullah as a result. He said only a few of his friends had been recruited. He was asked about the other claims in his original statement in support of his application and that included that he and a friend had been stopped and beaten by his abductors when he had been driving a vehicle . He told the Tribunal that was not true and that incident had not occurred. It was also not true that militants had visited the family home after the applicant came to Australia and asked about him and said that they would take him for military training. The applicant said it was also untrue that his friend [Mr A] had been shot after the applicant returned to Pakistan in January 2012. The applicant said that there had been an incident in a [workplace] that he had referred to in his second statement (provided at the Tribunal hearing) where a friend of his had been [shot]. The applicant said that the claims that he had spoken to the police after the shooting and that the police had told him to leave Pakistan were not true. He claimed these events had been added /included in his statement by his then migration agent. He said that migration agent was  [name]. The Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's evidence in relation to these issues is that the applicant knew that a number of the claims in his original statement in support of his protection Visa application were untrue. He blamed his former migration agent on several occasions during the Tribunal hearing for having included these false claims in his original statement in support of his protection Visa application.

10. The Tribunal expressed its concerns about the applicant having maintained these claims to the Department delegate. The applicant said that he had told the delegate that some parts of his claims were exaggerated and some parts were not true.

11. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims that he was afraid that he might have to pay protection money in Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that one of his brothers had to pay protection money. The Tribunal found the applicant to be very vague and provided no real details to the Tribunal about this claim. He told the Tribunal that he had just heard about this issue through his family and he really did not have any details. In essence the applicant was very vague in terms of supporting his claim that he feared harm on this basis if he returned to Pakistan.

12. The applicant told the Tribunal that no other members of his family had been harmed in Pakistan.

13. The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not fear harm from the Mullahs or the Taliban if he returned to Pakistan. In essence he withdrew his earlier claims to fear harm on these grounds . He said he was not afraid of the Mullahs or the Taliban but feared harm from sections of Pakistan society because of his sexuality. He told the Tribunal that in the past he had been teased about his sexuality when he was in Pakistan and he was not sure what would happen to him now if he returned to Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that he had not had any difficulty in obtaining his passport in Pakistan or in travelling in and out of Pakistan.

14. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the delay in applying for a protection Visa in Australia. He had first arrived in Australia in February 2011 and had then returned to Pakistan for about a month in January 2012. He return to Australia in February 2012. His first protection Visa application was lodged in March 2014 but was invalid. His protection Visa application before the Tribunal was lodged in June 2014. The Tribunal noted the significant delay by the applicant in applying for a protection Visa. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant having returned to Pakistan for one month did not appear to the Tribunal to be consistent with his claim that he feared harm in Pakistan. The Tribunal during the hearing told the applicant that the delay in applying for a protection Visa in Australia suggested that he did not fear harm if he returned to Pakistan. In commenting on the delay in applying for a protection Visa the applicant said that he did not know about the protection Visa process. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not studied after he returned to Australia from Pakistani and he also told the Tribunal that he had not been working initially when he returned to Australia from Pakistan. He said he was still receiving money/support from Pakistan at that time. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had not sought advice about seeking protection in Australia and he had not contacted the Department about seeking protection in Australia when he returned from Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that he could not afford a lawyer in terms of getting advice. He told the Tribunal that after he got the response from the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) in relation to the cancellation of his student Visa he asked some friends that he was living with about what he should do. He did not remember the date when he got the MRT decision. He said that he had then gone and gotten an application form to apply for protection and had gone to see a migration agent.

15. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he could not relocate if he feared harm in his local area in Pakistan. The applicant claimed that he could not relocate and that he would be harmed and bullied if people in Pakistan found out about his sexuality. He told the Tribunal that when he had been in Pakistan he had not been physically harmed but had been teased and bullied because of his sexuality.

16. In discussing the statement provided to the Tribunal at the hearing the applicant said that he had not been physically attacked when he had been in Pakistan because of his sexuality but that there had been verbal abuse and on occasions he had been pushed when he had been at school. The Tribunal notes that the applicant had claimed in his statement that he had met with physical abuse on occasions but when asked about that claim said that he had been pushed on occasions. He confirmed his claim that he had not attended his graduation ceremony because he was embarrassed on the basis of his sexuality. He referred to having been teased by friends and classmates and that had caused him not to attend the graduation ceremony. He claimed that his sexuality had been an issue that had been raised with his family and with his friends in Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that he had never told his parents about his sexuality but that other people in Pakistani society had complained to his parents that he was a bad influence because of his sexuality on his friends. He claimed that "restrictions" had been placed on him by his parents and his family after the parents of some of his friends had complained about him. The Tribunal overall found the applicant to be vague in discussing a number of the claims in the statement provided at the Tribunal hearing in relation to his claim to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality. The applicant provided very little detail to the Tribunal in relation to the broader claims in his statement regarding his sexuality and his fear of harm on that basis. His evidence about his claims in the statement were very general and lacking in detail

17. He told the Tribunal that because he was gay he would not be able to get state protection in Pakistan.

18. The Tribunal referred to the Department delegate's record of decision and the delegate's findings in relation to the applicant's claims. The Tribunal noted that the delegate had not accepted the credibility of the applicant's claims to fear harm and had not accepted that the applicant was entitled to protection in Australia. The applicant responded by saying that in Pakistan wherever he moved to it would not make a difference. That was a comment in relation to the issue of relocation. The Tribunal notes that the claim by the applicant that he feared harm on the basis of his sexuality had not been raised with the delegate.

19. He told the Tribunal that after his father had died in Pakistan and that his brother had stopped providing financial support to him and that was also because of the finding by the  MRT regarding his student Visa. The applicant said that his family had in essence split or separated after the death of his father and that his brothers were pursuing a number of separate business undertakings. He said he wanted to remain in Australia and become [occupation] and work in the [industry]. He told the Tribunal that he would now not get support from his family in Pakistan if he returned and that he was not really in touch with most of his brothers and that his brothers were focused on their businesses and jobs. The Tribunal found the applicant to be vague in responding to Tribunal questions about what he would do if he had to return to Pakistan. The Tribunal's overall assessment is that the applicant was concerned that he may not receive family support in the future if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had received family support in the past. His evidence to the Tribunal suggested to the Tribunal that he had received significant family support previously.

20. He told the Tribunal that he was not taking any medication and had not seen a doctor in relation to any stress conditions since he had been in Australia.

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he returned to Pakistan how he would pursue a gay lifestyle in the future. The applicant said that he could not change and that he could not live in a normal way in Pakistan but had not thought about returning to Pakistan and he did not know how he would deal with his sexuality in the future in Pakistan. He had told the Tribunal that he could not go back to Pakistan. He said he had nothing further to raise with the Tribunal about his claims and he said that he was worried and wanted to remain in Australia to make his life better.

22. The Tribunal referred to country information contained in the DFAT country report for Pakistan dated January 2016.

23. 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.

24. 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.

1. 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.

2. In relation to sexuality issues the Tribunal referred to the report noting that consensual same-sex sexual conduct is a criminal offence in Pakistan and that homosexuality is not widely discussed or acknowledged in Pakistan. The freedom to publicly identify as  being homosexual is constrained by cultural and societal mores. The report notes that the practice of homosexuality itself is generally more widespread and that there are a number of community-based organisations in larger cities in Pakistan that provide a range of support services to homosexual and transgender persons. The Department assessment is that discrimination and in some cases violence on the grounds of sexual orientation is prevalent in Pakistan and particularly in rural areas and that it is rare for gay and transgender persons to live openly in Pakistan.

3. The applicant said that he could not return to Pakistan because he has no links there however the Tribunal noted that the applicant has family in Pakistan.

4. The Tribunal raised 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 on the basis of his evidence and his claims. The Tribunal noted its concern that the applicant had raised a new claim to fear harm on the basis of his sexuality before the Tribunal.That aspect has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. That claim had not previously been made by the applicant. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had opportunity to provide further evidence to the Tribunal about his sexuality claim and that the Tribunal had only been provided with his statement on the day of the hearing but that there were no further statements or any other witnesses that the applicant had called in support of this claim notwithstanding that he had had ample notice of the Tribunal hearing. The applicant claimed that he could provide further materials to the Tribunal in support of this claim. The Tribunal indicated that it would allow the applicant some time after the hearing to provide further information to the Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal noted the delay by the applicant in applying for a protection Visa in Australia. The Tribunal noted its concern that the applicant returning to Pakistan in January 2012 was not consistent with his claim to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal noted that there had been no claims by the applicant that any other members of his family had been harmed in Pakistan. The Tribunal raised a concern that the applicant may have applied for a protection Visa on the basis that he just wished to remain in Australia. That concern arose out of the delay by the applicant in applying for a protection and that he applied for a protection Visa after being unsuccessful in a review to the MRT in relation to the cancellation of his student Visa. The Tribunal noted that the DFAT country report in a number of respects did not support some aspects of the applicant's claims. That was particularly so in relation to the applicant's broad claimed that he feared general violence in Pakistan. The Tribunal said that it had an overall concern about the credibility of the applicant's claims. The Tribunal noted that it was concerned the applicant's evidence in support of some of his claims was very vague. The Tribunal noted its concerns about the number of untrue claims in his first statement in support of his protection Visa application. That aspect had been discussed and raised with the applicant during the course of the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal noted that the issue of generalised violence in Pakistan was an issue faced by the Pakistani community generally and not by the applicant personally. The applicant had no comments in response to the concerns raised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the applicant until 19 May 2016 to provide any further comments or information to the Tribunal in support of his claims. The Tribunal received two statutory declarations after the hearing. Both declarations are comparatively short and each is about half a page in length. One of those declarations was dated [May] 2016 and came from [name]. The deponent said he first met the applicant through a school friend five years ago in Sydney. He said that he and the applicant live in the same place and that “we have had a very close and strong mental and physical relationship since we met”. The deponent claimed that he knows that the applicant is gay “because I myself am gay and we both have been in a loving relationship with each other”. The other declaration comes from [name] and is dated [May] 2016. In that declaration the deponent refers to the applicant as a housemate. The deponent said he met the applicant in December 2013 and that he had had a sexual relationship with the applicant “for a month or two”. The deponent referred to the applicant and said “I know he is gay because I had sex with him for a few times and he was always telling me that he is a homosexual. These days he is in a relationship with another guy”. Both deponents refer to the applicant’s sexuality as being a reason why he should be allowed to remain in Australia.

   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, without any evidence to the contrary, that on the basis of the information and materials provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal 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 the applicant's claims that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Pakistan based on his claims and his evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is also not satisfied as to the applicant's credibility in relation to some aspects of his evidence and to some aspects of his claims.

8. The applicant's claims to fear harm are referred to elsewhere in these reasons. As indicated the applicant withdrew his claim that he feared harm in Pakistan from Mullahs and the Taliban during the Tribunal hearing. In essence the applicant claimed to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality. That claim was raised for the first time before the Tribunal at the hearing and was raised by the applicant in his evidence and in the further statement that he provided to the Tribunal at the hearing. His evidence about that claim is referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The applicant also claimed to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of generalised violence in Pakistan. He really provided no significant evidence in support of that claim at the hearing other than to assert that he feared harm on that basis and he referred to particular incidents. He gave evidence that he had been abducted on one occasion in Pakistan in August 2009 and held for two days and that his family had paid to have him released on that occasion. He said he had not been physically harmed on that occasion by his abductors. He also gave evidence to the Tribunal that when he had returned to Pakistan in January 2012 there had been a shooting incident at a [workplace] when he was there and that a friend of his had been shot [on] that occasion. He also claimed that one of his brothers in essence paid protection money in Pakistan but the applicant was unable to provide any detailed evidence about that claim other than to say that he heard about it through other members of his family but that he really had no knowledge of the details. He also made a generalised claim that he feared that he would be subject to having to pay protection money if he returned to Pakistan but he provided no significant evidence in support of that broad claim.

9. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons the applicant admitted to the Tribunal that significant claims that were made in his statement in support of his protection Visa application were untrue. Those claims included that he had been at risk of harm from the Mullahs and the Taliban and that they were responsible for his abduction. He had claimed in his statement that he'd been physically mistreated when he had been abducted. He also claimed that he and a friend had been physically mistreated when they had been in a vehicle outside Karachi and that they had been mistreated by the same militants who he claimed had abducted him. He also claimed that his friend, [Mr A] had been shot when the applicant returned to Pakistan for one month in January 2012. He also claimed that the police on that occasion had told the applicant that they could not protect him in Pakistan and that he should leave. He also claimed that militants had visited his family and asked about the applicant. He told the Tribunal at the hearing that these claims were not true. He described the claims as "exaggerations" and he said they had been included in his statement by his former migration agent. The applicant evidence to the Tribunal clearly indicates that he was aware that these "exaggerations" had been made in his statement.

10. The Tribunal notes that the applicant made significant variations to his claims during the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal, as indicated elsewhere in these reasons, raised its concerns with the applicant about a number of aspects of his evidence and his claims. Those concerns include the very late claim by the applicant that he fears harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality and his delay in applying for a protection Visa in Australia.

11. The Tribunal has referred to the applicant's evidence in support of his claim that he fears harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality. The Tribunal's overall assessment of the applicant's evidence in support of this claim is that his evidence was very general and did not include any significant detail that the Tribunal believes could have been provided by the applicant given that the applicant claimed that he had been involved in some gay relationships in both Pakistan and in Australia.

12. The applicant's evidence overall to the Tribunal in support of his claims was in the Tribunal's view often very vague and lacking in significant detail that could have been expected given the nature of the applicant's claims. This included his evidence surrounding his practice of his gay lifestyle in terms of his sexuality in both Pakistan and in Australia and his evidence surrounding his claimed abduction in Pakistan. In relation to the abduction he claimed that he was abducted while waiting for a friend in Karachi and he became unconscious and was then held for two days in an unknown place. He claimed he was released when his brother paid a ransom. He really provided no other details in relation to that incident. He said he did not know who was behind his abduction. His evidence did not provide any significant detail about his claim that members of Pakistan society in his community had complained to his parents about his bad influence on their children and that he had faced restrictions in Pakistan by his parents as a result of these complaints. He claimed that he had not told his parents about his sexuality but at the same time claimed that parents of his friends and Mullahs had complained to the applicant's parents about his bad influence on others on the basis of his sexuality. He claimed that he had been made to attend religious schools and that was because the Mullahs wanted in essence to change the applicant's sexual orientation. He provided no significant detail in support of a number of his claims. He had claimed in his statement in support of his protection Visa application that he had become involved in working in the family business in Pakistan but he told the Tribunal at the hearing that he had not ever worked full-time in the business and he was only a trainee. The applicant's evidence about his employment in the family business suggested to the Tribunal that he had not been engaged in any significant way in learning the family business.

13. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant's evidence in relation to the delay in applying for a protection Visa in Australia and his evidence surrounding his late claim that he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality. He raised that claim for the first time during the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant's evidence in relation to the "exaggerated" claims in the applicant's statement in support of his protection Visa application. In essence the applicant admitted that a significant number of the claims in that statement were false. That evidence has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. He blamed his former migration agent for those claims but the applicant's evidence to the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was prepared to allow those claims to be made on his behalf. The Tribunal had difficulty in getting the applicant to clarify with certainty what instructions he had given his former agent about his claims. The applicant claimed that he had not told his former agent about his fears based on his sexuality but it is less clear to the Tribunal about the other instructions the applicant provided to his former agent about his claims. The delegate's record of decision indicates that the applicant continued to press those claims before the Department delegate. The Tribunal notes that during the Tribunal hearing the applicant withdrew his claims to fear harm from the Mullahs and Taliban if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. He commenced the Tribunal hearing still pressing those claims but during the course of the hearing withdrew those claims to fear harm. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant's evidence surrounding his return to Pakistan for about one month in January 2012.

14. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's overall evidence in support of his claims. The Tribunal's assessment, after considering the totality of the applicant's evidence and his claims which have  been considered and discussed, is that the applicant is not a credible witness. The Tribunal finds, after considering the totality of the evidence, that the applicant's reasons for seeking protection in Australia are that he wishes to remain in Australia to pursue a career in [industry] and that he is concerned that if he returned to Pakistan he would not get financial and other support from his immediate family. The Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility is based on its assessment of the totality of the evidence. The Tribunal does not accept that its assessment of the applicant's credibility is based on his claim that his former migration agent "exaggerated" aspects of his claims and in essence false claims were made in his statement in support of his protection Visa application. As indicated the applicant's evidence to the Tribunal clearly indicated that the applicant was aware of these "exaggerations" and was prepared to pursue those claims notwithstanding that he acknowledged to the Tribunal that a significant number of the claims were false. The Tribunal also does not accept that its assessment of the applicant's credibility is because the applicant had any memory difficulties in recalling dates or the sequence of events or details about particular events. As indicated the Tribunal's overall assessment of the applicant's credibility is based on the totality of the applicant's evidence. He told the Tribunal that he was not receiving any medication for stress or for any other condition. The Tribunal does not accept because of its assessment of the applicant's credibility and its assessment of the evidence that the applicant's former migration agent caused these "exaggerations" to be included in the applicant’s claims.

15. In those circumstances, and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of harm on the basis of his sexuality if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept on its assessment of the evidence that the applicant has a well-founded fear of harm if he returned to Pakistan, on the basis of his sexuality in that he claims he is gay. The applicant's claims this basis were as indicated made very late in his protection Visa application process. His overall evidence about this claim in terms of his activities in both Pakistan and Australia were in the Tribunal's view vague and lacking in any significant detail. His evidence has also been viewed by the Tribunal in the context of other claims made by the applicant that he now concedes were false and also the late nature of this claim to fear harm on the basis of his sexuality. He told the Tribunal that he had not raised the sexuality claim before the Department delegate because he did not feel confident about discussing the issues and he also claimed that he thought that he had to show that he was in a relationship to raise that claim. In summary they are the reasons the applicant claimed for not having raised this claim earlier during the protection Visa application process. The Tribunal's overall assessment is that it found the applicant's evidence about having not raised this claimed sooner or earlier to be unconvincing. He provided very little detail in his evidence about why he had not raised this claim earlier. The Tribunal notes that in assessing the applicant's credibility it has also had regard to the applicant's evidence about not having applied for a protection Visa application until after he had received the decision of the MRT in relation to his student Visa cancellation. The applicant's evidence about the delay in applying for a protection Visa suggests to the Tribunal that he pursued the protection Visa application after other alternatives for remaining in Australia had been exhausted. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the basis of the evidence that the applicant is gay and on that basis at risk in Pakistan of a real chance of serious harm if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The statutory declarations in support of the applicant’s claims about his sexuality that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons are in overall terms very brief. As indicated one declaration refers to the applicant and the deponent having been in a loving relationship with each other and having enjoyed a very close and strong mental and physical relationship. The applicant told the Tribunal that he engaged in sexual contact with a group of friends in Australia but that he did not regard himself as currently having a partner. The other statutory declaration referred to the applicant and the deponent having had a sexual relationship for a month or two. The deponent said that he knew that the applicant was gay because the deponent had sex with him a few times and that the applicant had told the deponent that he was homosexual. The Tribunal has considered this evidence but is not satisfied that it overcomes the Tribunal’s significant concerns about the applicant’s credibility and the credibility of his claims. The Tribunal considers that the material contained in the two statutory declarations is overall very brief and does not overcome the Tribunal’s wider concerns about the applicant’s credibility and the credibility of his claims. The Tribunal notes that despite the claims in one of the statutory declarations the applicant told the Tribunal that he did not regard himself as being in a permanent relationship with anyone in Australia.

1. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of generalised violence in Pakistan. The Tribunal has referred to claimed incidents that the applicant referred to in his evidence in support of his claims. He provided very little additional evidence to the Tribunal about this claim apart from his evidence surrounding his claimed abduction in August 2009 and the shooting incident in 2012 and his claim his brother had paid protection money in Pakistan but the applicant did not know any details in relation to that issue. As indicated the applicant significantly changed his evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the abduction claims. He still claimed to have been abducted for about two days did not know who was responsible for the abduction. He was not mistreated on that occasion and he did not know if any Mullahs had been involved in the abduction and no reference had been made by the abductors to Mullahs. He also significantly changed his claims about the shooting incident in 2012. He still claimed that a friend had been shot [on] that occasion at a [workplace] but it was not the person he identified as his friend, [Mr A] , who was shot. The applicant altered his original claims that the police had spoken to him after the shooting and told him that he could not be protected and he should leave Pakistan. He told the Tribunal he did not speak to the police after this claimed incident. The DFAT country report information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons indicates that the security situation varies between Pakistan's provinces and autonomous regions. Relevantly relation to the applicant the level of violence is greater in some provinces and including Sindh province and varies depending on the location of Pakistan military operations. Urban centres are said to be more secure than rural areas with the exception of Karachi. The report notes that organised and violent crime kidnapping for ransom occurs throughout the report also notes that while exact figures are not available the paramilitary ranger operations in Karachi are said to have substantially reduced the level of serious crime and including homicide throughout Pakistan. The report notes the Pakistan military operations against terrorists and militant groups in FATA and Karachi have substantially reduce the level of generalised and sectarian violence throughout the country.

2. The Tribunal after considering the applicant's claims and evidence and having regard to the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility does not accept that the applicant was abducted in around August 2009 as he claimed and detained for two days and released after a ransom was paid by his family for his release. The applicant's inconsistent evidence in relation to this claim has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal also does not accept on the basis of the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's evidence and its assessment of his credibility that the applicant was involved in a shooting incident in a [workplace] after he returned to Pakistan in January 2012. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has made inconsistent claims in relation to this incident. The Tribunal after considering the applicant's evidence and its assessment of the applicant's credibility also does not accept that the applicant's brother paid  protection money in Pakistan that the applicant fears harm on that  basis if they returned to Pakistan in that he may have to pay protection money as well. The applicant's vague evidence about that claim has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal also does not accept the applicant’s claim that the Taliban interfered with his family in Pakistan. The applicant withdrew his claim to fear harm from the Taliban during the Tribunal hearing. Before he withdrew that claim the applicant had struggled to explain to the Tribunal how the Taliban had actually interfered with his family in Pakistan.

3. The Tribunal accepts on the basis of the DFAT country report that there are incidents of organised and violent crimes occurring throughout Pakistan but that in recent times that report notes that there has been a substantial reduction in the level of serious crime because of the paramilitary ranger operations in Karachi. The Tribunal accepts that the DFAT country report provides recent and credible information relevant to a number of the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of generalised violence in Pakistan should he return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal notes that the applicant told the Tribunal that no other members of his family had been harmed in Pakistan.

4. The Tribunal after considering the applicant's claims both individually and cumulatively does not accept on the basis of the evidence and its assessment of the applicant's credibility and the country information that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on the basis of his claims. The Tribunal does not accept 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.

5. 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 applicant's claims and the evidence and available and relevant country information in relation to the applicant's claims. The applicant is a single male person. He has been supported in the past in Pakistan by his immediate family and that support has included support both in Pakistan and in Australia. He claims he no longer gets support from his family in Pakistan and that if he returned to Pakistan he would not receive assistance from the family. The applicant has been able to find employment in Australia. He undertook some [studies] when he came to Australia initially in 2011. The applicant told the Tribunal that he wants to pursue a career as [occupation] and work in [industry] if he remained in Australia.

6. The Tribunal has referred to the evidence and the applicant's claims that he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his sexuality. The Tribunal has considered and discussed that claim and the evidence and has also considered and discussed its assessment of the applicant's credibility and for the reasons that have been considered and discussed elsewhere does not accept that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm on that basis. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant's claims and the evidence and country information that the applicant fears harm from generalised violence in Pakistan. Those issues have also been considered and discussed elsewhere in these reasons and for the same reasons the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm on that basis. The Tribunal finds that any risks that the applicant may face if he returned to Pakistan in relation to generalised violence would be risks faced by the Pakistani population generally and not by the applicant personally. The Tribunal also does not accept for the reasons that have been considered and discussed the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm on the basis of his claim that he may be subject to paying protection money if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal notes that the applicant told the Tribunal that no other members of his immediate family had been harmed in Pakistan. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has previously been provided with support by his immediate family in both Pakistan in Australia and that evidence suggests to the Tribunal that the applicant would likely receive assistance from his immediate family if he returned to Pakistan. The applicant gave evidence that he still maintains occasional contact with his mother and one other brother who live in Pakistan. As indicated the applicant has been able to find employment in Australia and support himself and that evidence together with his education suggests to the Tribunal that he would be able to find employment and accommodation in Pakistan if he returned.

7. The Tribunal has considered the definition of significant harm contained in the Act as well as the relevant definitions contained in s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal after considering the claims and the totality of the evidence and country information that has been referred to and discussed 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 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 is to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in the Act 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

8. 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).

9. 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).]

10. 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

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

    James Jolliffe
    Member