1507311 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 196

1507311 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 196 (25 January 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1507311

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:25 January 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 25 January 2017 at 11:37am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Pakistan – Particular social group – Love marriages – Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan – Honour disputes – Physical assault – Forced marriage – Threats of suicide – Credibility issues

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 424A, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2

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 applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants are husband and wife. The first named applicant (the applicant) is a citizen of Pakistan and the second named applicant (the applicant wife) is citizen of [Country 1]. They applied for protection visas [in] August 2014.

   Evidence before the Department

   Protection Visa Application

   The Applicant

3. The applicant was born in [year] in Karachi, Pakistan. He arrived in Australia in January 2009 on a [temporary] visa. He returned to Pakistan in January 2012, staying for a period of two months. He married the applicant wife in Australia [in] February 2014.

4. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant made the following claims.

5. The applicant’s parents and his wife’s parents had initially agreed to their marriage. However, his wife’s mother changed her mind and decided that her [Relative A] should marry the applicant wife instead. The applicant wife’s mother informed the police that the applicant was a member of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). He was arrested and tortured by the police. His father bribed the police and the applicant fled to Australia. He then ‘called’ the applicant wife to Australia and they got married. His wife’s parents subsequently came to Australia and threatened to commit suicide if she refused to return to [Country 2] with them. The applicant wife agreed to return to [Country 2] with her parents, believing that she would be able to sponsor the applicant to migrate to [Country 2]. However, after being ‘forced’ to marry her [Relative A] in [Country 2], the applicant wife ran away and came to Australia. Her parents threatened to cancel the applicant’s visa in Australia and send him back to Pakistan. They also threatened to come to Australia with the applicant wife’s [Relative A] to take her back to [Country 2]. The applicant ‘sent [his] wife to Pakistan immediately’. The police and the TTP were planning to abduct his wife in Pakistan, so she came back to Australia. He could not lodge an application for a protection visa until his wife had returned safely to Australia.

6. The applicant fears being abducted and killed by the police and the TTP. He will be arrested by the police and he will be handed over to the TTP, who will force him to fight.  The police and the TTP will ‘hurt’ or kill him because he ‘called’ his wife to Australia and married her. His wife’s parents are planning to take her away.

   The Applicant Wife

7. The applicant wife was born in [a town in Country 1] in [year]. She first arrived in Australia [in] February 2014. She travelled to [Country 2] [in] March 2014 and returned to Australia [in] April 2014. She departed Australia for Pakistan [in] June 2014, returning to Australia [in] August 2014.

   Protection Visa Interview

8. The applicants were interviewed by a delegate of the Minister [in] March 2015. Where relevant, the applicants’ oral evidence to the delegate is discussed below.

9. Following the interview, the applicant wife submitted to the Department a transcript of a text message conversation, using [an app], between the applicant and the applicant wife’s friend, [named], over a number of days ([in] March 2014 [and] April 2014). The conversation is in relation to the applicant wife’s experiences in [Country 2] during this period.

   The Delegate’s Decision

10. The delegate refused to grant the visas [in] June 2015.

    Application for Review

11. The applicants applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. In support of their review application, the applicants provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record and the applicants are taken to be on notice of the delegate’s findings and reasons.

12. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 28 September 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.

13. On 30 September 2016, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants under s.424A of the Act 1958 and invited them to comment on/respond to information that the Tribunal considered would, subject to any comments/response they made, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The applicant’s responded to the letter on 14 October 2016.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

14. 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.

15. 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).

16. 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.

17. 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’).

18. 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.

    Analysis, Reasons and Findings

    Nationality

19. The applicant has made protection claims against Pakistan. He submitted to the Tribunal a copy of a passport issued in his own name by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. he Tribunal finds that he is a national of Pakistan. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any country other than Pakistan. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Pakistan and that Pakistan is his receiving country.

20. The applicant wife has made protection claims against [Country 1], [Country 2] and Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts her evidence at the hearing that she was born in [Country 1] and resided in that country until the age of [age]. She subsequently travelled to Pakistan, where she remained for a period of [number] years. After briefly returning to [Country 1], the applicant wife and her family relocated to [Country 2]. The applicant wife’s parents continue to reside in [Country 2]. The applicant wife, however, provided to the Tribunal a copy of a valid [Country 1] passport issued in her name. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any other country, including [Country 2]. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of [Country 1] and that [Country 1] is her receiving country.

21. The Tribunal did not find the applicants to be credible and truthful witnesses and has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has had regard to the reasons detailed below. 

    TTP and 2008

22. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant wife stated that, in 2008, her mother had told her that the applicant had links to the TTP in order to dissuade the applicant wife from the idea of marrying the applicant. The applicant wife stated that when she travelled to Pakistan in 2013, the applicant’s [Relative B] told her that, in 2008, the applicant wife’s mother had called the police in Pakistan and accused the applicant of being a member of the TTP. The police had subsequently arrested and tortured the applicant. The applicant wife stated that the applicant’s family knew that her mother was responsible because the police had called them in 2008 to inform them that the applicant wife’s mother had reported to the police that the applicant was with the TTP. After she returned to [Country 2], the applicant wife confronted her mother about the 2008 incident. Her mother told her that the applicant’s family were lying. Her mother also threatened to harm the applicant’s side of the family in Pakistan. Her mother did not say anything else about the 2008 incident and denied that she was involved in anyway.

23. At an interview with the Department, the applicant wife provided a different account, stating that, at first, the applicant’s side of the family were not aware of what her mother had done and that they only learnt of her mother’s involvement in the 2008 incident through other relatives. In 2013, when she asked her mother about the incident, at first her mother denied any involvement, but then she confirmed her role in the incident. When the applicant wife asked for an explanation, her mother said that she did not want her to marry the applicant.

24. At the hearing, the applicant stated that when he was arrested in 2008, the police informed him that he was being arrested because of his involvement with the TTP. However, they also informed him that they knew that he was not with the TTP and that they just wanted to threaten him. They told him that they had arrested him because the applicant wife’s family had reported him so that he would stay away from the applicant wife. He stated that he was detained for ‘a couple of days’. When asked about his claim that he had been ‘tortured’, he said it was not ‘big’. He was slapped and beaten on his feet with a stick. When his evidence at the Departmental interview (below) was put to him, he said that he was also beaten on his back with a stick.

25. At the Departmental interview, the applicant stated that, when he was arrested and detained in 2008, the police did not tell him why he had been arrested, and neither the applicant nor his family knew that the applicant wife’s mother had reported him. It was two or three years later that they found out through other family members that the applicant wife’s mother had been involved. The applicant also stated that, in 2008, he was detained for one week and he was tortured by way of being hit with a stick on his buttocks.

26. The various inconsistencies in the applicants’ evidence were discussed at the hearing. The applicant commented that people say different things over time. With regard to inconsistencies in her own evidence, the applicant wife stated that she must have forgotten to say anything about her mother denying knowledge of the 2008 incident. She added that, when she ran away to Australia on the second occasion and her mother threatened her, she asked her mother if she was involved in the 2008 incident and her mother admitted it.

27. In response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, it was stated that ‘there were a lot of things that happened all at once and this was many years ago’. It was stated that the applicant wife ‘forgot’ to mention at the Department that her husband's side of the family found out ‘very late in the year 2008 starting of 2009’ that the applicant wife’s mother was ‘involved’. It was stated that the applicant’s side of family first found out through other relatives and ‘the police also called them and confirmed that [her] mother was indeed involved in getting [the applicant] arrested’. This was the time when the applicant’s side of family were ‘sure and convinced’ that the applicant wife’s mother was ‘behind all this’ because her parents ‘have contacts with the police in Pakistan’. The Tribunal does not find these explanations satisfactory. If the applicant wife’s parents had contacts with the police, no explanation has been provided as to why the police had contacted the applicant’s family to inform them that the applicant wife’s parents were behind the applicant’s alleged arrest. It has not been claimed that the applicant’s family had any connections with the police.

28. In the response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, it was further stated that, in 2013, when the applicant wife confronted her mother about the 2008 incident involving her husband, her mother initially denied any involvement and told her that the applicant’s family are lying. When the applicant wife told her mother that she likes the applicant’s family and that she was in contact with them from 2006 to 2008, it ‘did not go well’ with her mother and she threatened to harm the applicant’s side of family. This threat ‘confirmed’ that she was ‘indeed involved’ in the applicant’s arrest in 2008. This is because ‘I thought to myself if she wasn't involved, why would she threaten me’. However, ‘after a while’ her mother admitted this to her ‘in rage and anger’, but when she calmed down, she again denied her involvement. It was stated that there were some things which were not said during the interview with the Department, as it has been a while since these things happened. The applicant wife further stated ‘moving on, when I asked for an explanation to my mother, she didn't justify herself and told me that there is a caste difference and that if I want to live in the house, I will have to marry [Relative A]’. In relation to the applicant’s evidence, it was stated ‘whatever [the applicant] said at the hearing was the same thing he said at the interview held at the Department of Immigration’. It was further stated that the applicant, initially, did not know that the applicant wife’s mother was behind ‘all this’ and that he found out three years later through his family. It was stated that the applicant ‘forgot to mention’ at the hearing that, when he was arrested, only his father and family were informed by the police of the applicant mother’s involvement. After his ‘traumatising experience with the police’, his family wanted him to concentrate on his [life in] Australia. Three years later, he found out through the extended family.

29. The Tribunal finds these explanations improvised and unsatisfactory. The Tribunal finds it highly unpersuasive that an alleged threat made by the applicant wife’s mother against the applicant’s family in 2013 had confirmed, in the applicant wife’s mind, that her mother was involved in her husband’s alleged arrest in 2008. These explanations do not correspond with the applicant’s evidence to the delegate that it was two or three years after his alleged arrest that he and other members of his immediate family, found out about the involvement of the applicant wife’s mother through other family members. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate was consistent with evidence to the Tribunal. As noted above, the applicant clearly stated at the hearing that, when he was allegedly arrested in 2008, the police told him that they had arrested him because the applicant wife’s family had reported him so that he would stay away from her.

30. With regard to the applicant’s claimed mistreatment at the hands of the police, it was stated in the response that, in his oral evidence to the delegate, the applicant had stated that ‘he was hit with a stick on his feet and bum and in response the Officer who was interviewing him said 'striking with the stick' to which he replied yes but he misinterpreted this phrase’.

31. This explanation, however, does not satisfactorily address the problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence regarding the alleged period of his detention.

32. The Tribunal finds the applicants’ evidence in relation to the alleged events in 2008 unreliable, unconvincing and lacking in credibility.

    The Applicant Wife’s Return to [Country 2] in March 2014

33. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant wife stated that, approximately a month after her marriage to the applicant, her parents and her mother’s [relative] visited her in Australia. She stated that she was shocked to see them. However, they were loving towards her and the applicant and they appeared to be happy. They said that they accepted the marriage and that it was a good match. They told her that in order to save their honour they were going to take her back to have a ceremony in [Country 2]. The applicant wife further stated that on the first two or three days following their arrival, they were fine, but later they started putting pressure on her that she had to go back to [Country 2] for a ceremony. This made her and the applicant suspicious and they told her parents that she would not return to [Country 2]. The applicant wife’s parents then threatened to commit suicide and the applicant wife finally agreed to travel back to [Country 2].

34. At her interview with the Department, however, the applicant wife stated that, when her parents came to Australia, they were very nice and said they wanted a ceremony in [Country 2]. When she returned to [Country 2], there was no ceremony. The applicant wife made no mention of refusing to return to [Country 2] or her parents threatening to commit suicide.

35. In his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant stated that the applicant wife agreed to return to [Country 2] with her parents because she is soft hearted. Her parents told her no one in [Country 2] knew about her marriage and they needed to have a celebration to make an announcement. Both the applicant and the applicant wife believed her parents and she returned to [Country 2].  When asked whether he became suspicious at any point, the applicant further stated that his [Relative C] was in Australia at the time and he said that the applicant wife’s parents might be up to something. However, the applicant decided to trust them and told his wife that if something were to happen she could always return to Australia.

1. In his evidence at the interview, the applicant stated that when the applicant wife’s parents came to Australia after the marriage, everything was fine, and said they said they wanted to take her back to [Country 2] for a little ceremony in their town. The applicant did not claim that anyone had objected to the applicant wife returning to [Country 2] or that the applicant wife’s parents had threatened to commit suicide.

2. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that, when the applicant wife’s parents came to Australia, they threatened to commit suicide if she refused to return to [Country 2] with them.

3. When the above inconsistencies were discussed with the applicants at the hearing, the applicant stated that, maybe, he had thought his in-laws were bluffing when making telephone threats. In response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, it was stated that, when they received threats from the applicant mother’s ‘side’, the applicant thought that the threats were ‘vague’ and ‘empty’. He also thought that no one can do anything when he is with his family. The applicant’s side of family reside in Sindh, Karachi and not in Punjab. The applicant’s wife decided to travel to Pakistan ‘for a couple of days without informing anyone’ except the applicant’s family. She visited the applicant’s [family] in Karachi in June 2014. However, the applicant’s [Relative B] resides in Punjab with her [own family]. When the applicant wife went to Pakistan, after a few weeks, the applicant’s [Relative B] told her that ‘the Police had come in search of [them] because ‘somehow’ the applicant wife’s found out she was in Pakistan. The applicant wife’s mother went to the police in order to get the applicant arrested again, take the applicant wife away and kill or torture both of them. When they heard this, they ‘quickly’ booked her return ticket to Australia. She returned in August 2014 and she was told by her in-laws that the police had come again searching for them.

4. The Tribunal finds these explanations contrived, unconvincing and unsatisfactory. The Tribunal is unable to reconcile the claim that, on the one hand, the applicant had considered the threats from the applicant mother’s side ‘vague’ and ‘empty’, but, on the other hand, according to his application for a protection visa, in response to threats from the applicant wife’s parents, he ‘sent [his] wife to Pakistan immediately’. Indeed, as noted above, the applicant wife also stated at the hearing that she had travelled to Pakistan because she became afraid after answering a threatening call from her mother following her return from [Country 2]. No explanation has been provided as to why, in his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant stated that after his wife returned to Australia from [Country 2] in April 2016, she had no contact with her family.

5. The Tribunal is also unable to reconcile the claims in the applicant’s application for a protection visa and his oral evidence to the Department that he wanted his to travel to Pakistan to have a look first so that he could join her later. In her oral evidence to the delegate, the applicant wife also stated that she returned to Pakistan in June 2014 because the applicant’s Australian visa was about to expire and he wanted her to go to Pakistan to see if they could return and live there together.

   The Applicant Wife’s Travel to Pakistan in June 2014

6. At the hearing, the applicant wife stated that, after she returned to Australia from [Country 2] in April 2016, she answered a call from her mother and her mother threatened to return to Australia with her [relative]. She threatened to kill both her daughter and the applicant. The applicant wife became afraid and this was the reason why she decided to travel to Pakistan in June 2014.

7. At the Departmental interview, however, the applicant wife stated that she returned to Pakistan in June 2014 because the applicant’s Australian visa was about to expire, and he wanted her to go to Pakistan to see if everything was okay and whether they would be able to live there together.

8. At the hearing, the applicant stated that after the applicant wife returned to Australia from [Country 2] in April 2016, she had no contact with her family. The only reason she travelled to Pakistan in June 2014 was to visit his family.

9. Art the Departmental interview, the applicant stated that he wanted to go back to Pakistan so that he and the applicant wife could live there together. He wanted her to travel to Pakistan to have a look first so that he could join her later.

10. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that the applicant wife’s parents threatened to cancel his visa in Australia and send him back to Pakistan. They also threatened to come to Australia with the applicant wife’s [Relative A] to take her back to [Country 2]. As a result, the applicant ‘sent [his] wife to Pakistan immediately’. The police and the TTP were planning to abduct his wife in Pakistan, so she came back to Australia.

11. In response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, it was stated that, when they received threats from the applicant mother’s ‘side’, the applicant thought that the threats were ‘vague’ and ‘empty’. He also thought that no one can do anything when he is with his family. The applicant’s side of the family reside in Sindh, Karachi and not in Punjab. The applicant’s wife decided to travel to Pakistan ‘for a couple of days without informing anyone’ except the applicant’s family. She visited the applicant’s [family] in Karachi in June 2014. However, the applicant’s [Relative B] resides in Punjab with her [family]. When the applicant wife went to Pakistan, after a few weeks, the applicant’s [Relative B] told her that ‘the Police had come in search of [them] because ‘somehow’ the applicant wife’s mother found out she was in Pakistan. The applicant wife’s mother went to the police in order to get the applicant arrested again, take the applicant wife away and kill or torture both of them. When they heard this, they ‘quickly’ booked her return ticket to Australia. She returned in August 2014 and she was told by her in-laws that the police had come again searching for them.

12. The Tribunal finds these explanations contrived, unconvincing and unsatisfactory. The Tribunal is unable to reconcile the claim that, on the one hand, the applicant had considered the threats from the applicant mother’s side ‘vague’ and ‘empty’, but, on the other hand, according to his application for a protection visa, in response to threats from the applicant wife’s parents, he ‘sent [his] wife to Pakistan immediately’. Indeed, as noted above, the applicant wife also stated at the hearing that she had travelled to Pakistan for ‘safety’ because she became afraid after answering a threatening call from her mother, following her return from [Country 2]. No explanation has been provided as to why, in his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant stated that after his wife returned to Australia from [Country 2] in April 2016, she had no contact with her family.

13. The Tribunal is also unable to reconcile the claims in the applicant’s application for a protection visa and his oral evidence to the Department that he wanted his wife to travel to Pakistan to have a look first so that he could join her later. In her oral evidence to the delegate, the applicant wife also stated that she returned to Pakistan in June 2014 because the applicant’s Australian visa was about to expire and he wanted her to go to Pakistan to see if they could return and live there together. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant wife had a genuine fear of being harmed in Pakistan, she would not have travelled to that country with her husband’s approval and encouragement. 

14. The Tribunal finds the applicants’ evidence unreliable, unconvincing and lacking in credibility.

    Contact and Communication

15. At the hearing, the applicant wife stated that she had no contact with the applicant before October 2013. She stated that whilst, prior to 2013, she Skype called the applicant’s [Relative B] or his family, she did not speak to him.

16. In his evidence at the Departmental interview, the applicant stated that whist he had no contact with the applicant wife from 2008 to 2013, between 2006 and 2008 they talked several times a week.

17. At the Tribunal hearing, however, the applicant stated that, between 2006 and 2008, he and the applicant wife spoke to each other once or twice a month. When asked about the inconsistencies in the evidence, he said that he did not know.

18. In response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, in relation to the applicants’ contact with each other between 2006 and 2008, it was stated that they ‘vaguely remember the communication’. The applicant wife remembers talking to her husband's family every ‘now and then’, but she was only [age] years old and her husband, who was [age] at that time, remembers that they used to talk ‘but not as much’. They were just minor, short conversations.

19. Whilst the Tribunal appreciates that the applicant wife was only [age] years old at the time, the Tribunal is unable to reconcile the inconsistencies in their evidence.

20. The applicants stated that there have been some misinterpretations on some topics and that ‘perhaps’ their explanations ‘were lacking some of the important details about the events which we thought were less important’. It was further stated that many things had happened over the course of many years, which they ‘vaguely remember’. They communicated their evidence according what they remembered.

21. For all of the above reasons the Tribunal did not find the applicants to be credible and truthful witnesses. The totality of their evidence shows a propensity to fabricate claims and tailor evidence in a manner which achieves their own purpose.

22. The Tribunal has considered the applicants’ more general explanations in their response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter. In the response, it was stated that, at the hearing, they were both ‘mentally very disturbed and emotionally drained out’ because of what had happened with the applicant’s [Relative C] (see below). Following the hearing, they listened to the audio recording of the Departmental interview and had a chance to ‘reflect back at whatever was said’ in order to respond to the Tribunal's s.424A letter. It was further stated that there have been some misinterpretations on some topics and that ‘perhaps’ their explanations ‘were lacking some of the important details about the events which we thought were less important’. It was stated that many things had happened over the course of many years, which they ‘vaguely remember’. They communicated their evidence according what they remembered.

23. The Tribunal, however, is not satisfied that these comments explain the numerous problems the Tribunal has identified in the applicants’ evidence. These factors do not address the depth and the breadth of the Tribunal's concerns with regard to the credibility of their overall claims.

24. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept that the applicant was arrested, detained, threatened, mistreated or harmed in any way by the police in Pakistan in 2008 or at any other time. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife’s mother had reported the applicant to the police in Pakistan, or that he was ever accused of being linked to the TTP. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had ever encountered any difficulties or problems at the hands of the police or the applicant wife’s family in Pakistan. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife’s parents, or her side of the family, had threatened to harm the applicant or his side of the family. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife had travelled to [Country 2] in 2014 because her parents had threatened to commit suicide if she refused to return to [Country 2] with them. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife was ‘forced’ to marry her [Relative A] in [Country 2]. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife’s parents had threatened to cancel the applicant’s visa in Australia and send him back to Pakistan. The Tribunal does not accept that they had threatened to come to Australia with the applicant wife’s [Relative A] to take her back to [Country 2]. The Tribunal does not accept that the police and the TTP were planning to abduct his wife when she visited Pakistan in June 2014. The Tribunal does not accept that, in 2014, the police had searched for the applicant on two separate occasions. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is at risk of being abducted and killed by the police and the TTP, as claimed. The Tribunal does not accept that he will be arrested by the police and handed over to the TTP. The Tribunal does not accept that he will be forced to fight for the TTP.  The Tribunal does not accept that the police and the TTP will ‘hurt’ or kill him because he ‘called’ his wife to Australia and married her. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife’s parents have threatened to kill the applicants.

25. At the hearing, the applicants claimed that, more recently, the applicant’s [Relative C], who resides in Karachi, was visiting his [Relative B] in Lahore, Punjab. Contrary to advice given to him, he decided to visit a [different relative] in [Town 1], where the applicant wife’s [Relative D] also resides. When the [Relative D] saw the applicant’s [Relative C], he slapped or punched him and chased after him with a knife. When other relatives restrained the [Relative D], he ran away. No further information was provided in relation to the precise circumstances of the encounter. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that an altercation might have occurred between the applicant’s [Relative C] and a relative on the applicant wife’s side after a chance encounter. However, having regard to the Tribunal's findings in relation to the applicants’ credibility, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that this chance encounter and altercation was in anyway related to the applicants’ circumstances. The Tribunal does not accept that this incident suggests that, if the applicant were to return to Karachi, there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant will face serious or significant harm at the hands of his wife’s relatives.

26. Notwithstanding the above findings, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant and the applicant wife were married in Australia against the wishes of the applicant wife’s parents. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant wife’s family subsequently came to Australia and persuaded her to return to [Country 2] to celebrate her marriage. On the basis of the transcript of the text message conversation between the applicant and one of his wife’s friends in [Country 2] during the same period, the Tribunal accepts that while the applicant wife was in [Country 2], her family exerted pressure on her to travel to Pakistan and to leave her marriage in favour marrying another relative. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant wife refused to accede to her mother’s wishes. The Tribunal accepts that, on one occasion, the applicant wife and her mother had an argument in [Country 2]. The Tribunal accepts that the argument turned physical and her mother punched her on her back, slapped her and pulled her hair. The Tribunal also accepts that, when she told her father, her father asked for a knife, which frightened the applicant wife. However, according to her evidence to the delegate, her father had asked for a knife, threatening to stab himself. The applicant wife’s father had not harmed himself, nor had he harmed the applicant wife in anyway. The Tribunal accepts that she had left her parents’ house in [Country 2] on the following day without difficulty, and returned to Australia a few days later. The applicant wife did not claim that she was ever seriously harmed by her mother, and expressly stated, at the hearing, that her father had never harmed her in the past. The Tribunal accepts that she has not been in contact with her parents since 2014.

27. The Tribunal has rejected the applicants’ claims that the applicant wife’s parents or other extended family members had ever threatened to seriously harm them or that they ever intended to seriously harm them. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant wife’s family had opposed her marriage to the applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she or the applicant were subjected to serious or significant harm by any member of her family in the past. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant wife’s parents or any other family members have any intention to seriously harm her or her husband, including by way of influencing Pakistani authorities to target the applicants. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm in Pakistan at the hands of his wife’s side of the family, the police, the TTP or anyone else for reasons related to, or arising from, his marriage to the applicant wife, his imputed political opinion or any other reason. The Tribunal finds that the applicant wife does not face a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm in Pakistan at the hands of her family members or anyone else.

28. At the hearing, the applicant wife claimed that her [Relative E] resides in [Country 1] and he has ‘connections’. She stated that she is fearful for her safety and the safety of her new-born child. She stated that her [Relative E] would harm her because, at some point, he wanted her to marry [within the family]. However, the applicant wife did not claim, and there was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest, that her [Relative E] had ever harmed her or he had expressed any intention to harm her for the reasons she has provided. She did not make any other claims against [Country 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife’s [two specific relatives] or anyone else in [Country 1] will harm her if she were to return to [Country 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife’s parents will harm her in [Country 1]. The Tribunal finds that the applicant wife does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in [Country 1] at the hands of her relatives or anyone else for reasons related to, or arising from, her marriage to the applicant.

29. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

    DECISION

30. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

    Shahyar Roushan
    Senior Member