1507469 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa claims of a Pakistani national and his wife and daughter. The applicants, who are citizens of Pakistan and reside in Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, fled Pakistan due to threats made against the first applicant by individuals associated with the same group that had threatened his brother. The first applicant had previously returned to Pakistan in 2012 and subsequently re-entered Australia in 2014, at which time he lodged his protection visa application. The other applicants are included as members of his family unit.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal needed to assess whether the first applicant satisfied section 36(2)(a) and the other applicants satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) of the Act, by virtue of their membership in the same family unit as the first applicant. This involved considering the credibility of the applicants' claims, the availability of state protection in Pakistan, and the reasonableness of internal relocation.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the consistency of the applicants' claims with previously accepted evidence from the first applicant's brother, whose case had been determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the brother's claims, which involved threats, kidnapping attempts, and subsequent flight from Pakistan, were found to be truthful and supported by country information. The Tribunal also had regard to Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information regarding the security situation in Pakistan, including the presence of militant groups, organised crime, and the impact of military operations. While acknowledging improvements in security in some areas, the report indicated that militant sleeper cells remain and that organised crime, including kidnapping for ransom, occurs throughout the country.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with specific directions. It found that the second applicant (the wife) satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) of the Act as a member of the first applicant's family unit. The directions require the Tribunal to be satisfied that the first applicant meets section 36(2)(a) and that the other applicants meet section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of their membership in the same family unit.