1510210 (Refugee)

1510210 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3050 (29 May 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1510210
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan
MEMBER:Amanda Goodier
DATE:29 May 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 29 May 2017 at 11:45am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Pakistan – Racial discrimination – Shia Muslim – Syed – Affiliation with Shia student organisations – Attacked and stabbed – Not high profile members of the Shia community – Fears harm as a returnee from a western country
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65,91R, 91S, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347
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

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).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan applied for the visa on [date] October 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on [date] July 2015. A copy of the delegate’s decision was attached to the application for review.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on [date] January 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s [brother].
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal must consider and decide whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Pakistan for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. In considering these issues, the Tribunal has applied the law set out in Annexure “A” and has carefully considered all of the applicant’s claims and evidence as well as the independent information referred to by the delegate in their decision which was attached to the application for review as well as the independent country information referred to in this decision and attached in Annexure B.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of reference and home area
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Pakistan and provided various documents in support of his identity. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a citizen of Pakistan and that Pakistan is his country of nationality and receiving country.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in any other country, therefore, the Tribunal finds that he is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations under s36(3).
The applicant claims to have been born in Rawalpindi where he lives apart from his time at school when he resided in [another city] but he returned to his home in Rawalpindi during vacations. He indicated to the Tribunal that paternal and maternal families are from [another area]but his father moved to Rawalpindi he thinks in the 1970s and that is where he has resided since. He indicates that some of his family have moved to [a western country] and his brothers now reside in Australia.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s home area is Rawalpinid, Punjab Province, Pakistan.
Background and summary of evidence
A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and set out the applicant’s history and migration history as well as setting out his claims and statement in full.
The applicant was born in Rawalpindi on [date]and lived in the same house until his departure in July 2010. He indicates he can speak, read and write Urdu and English. He has never been married or in a de facto relationship. He arrived in Australia on [date] July 2010. He indicates he enrolled in study in Australia and has been employed in various jobs during his stay in Australia. He indicates he returned to Pakistan for his brothers’ wedding in August 2012.
He arrived in Australia as the holder of a student visa on [date] July 2010, departing on [date]August 2012 and returning on [date] September 2012. His student visa was cancelled on [date] June 2013 and he has been the holder of a bridging visa since. He lodged this application on [date] October 2013 and was interviewed on [date] June 2014.
The applicant claims to fear harm returning to Pakistan as he came to Australia to seek safety and he intended to continue his studies. His life is not safe due to his ethnicity and the social organisations he joined as a student. He has been threatened and his family is continually harassed to inform on him. When he was in Pakistan he went into hiding and did not open the door to anyone or answer telephone calls. The last time he was in Pakistan an attempt was made on his life and he was stabbed. He spent time in hospital with severe injuries from the stabbing to his [body]. This is due to his ethnicity as a Shia Muslim and a member of targeted organisations in Pakistan. The police have informed him that they cannot protect him as they do not have the resources or political backing. It is only a matter of time before he is gravely injured. He has received threats to his life and person. Telephone calls were made to his home and family. He has received threatening notes as well. He has relied on his immediate family to keep him safe but this can only be done a few days at a time as people are looking for him and there are informers everywhere. When he returns to Pakistan it has to be in secret and the extended family cannot know in case they say something and the wrong people find out he has returned. Informers regularly asked when he is returning. He would not be able to work and would have to remain in hiding. He will be persecuted because he is Shia. He has been threatened by telephone and graffiti outside his home. Friends and family members who were members of this group have been murdered and being vocal about the mistreatment of Shia in Pakistan. He cannot relocate as they will find him and the police cannot protect him.
He provided various articles dated in 2012 about the killing of Shia in Pakistan.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of a letter and English translation from [a]Police Station in Rawalpindi dated [date] August 2012 stating that the applicant has been attacked by a terrorist group named Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) on [date] August 2012 and experienced deep wounds to his [body]. He was earlier threatened by the same militant group by telephone. Therefore his life is under threat. It is believed the attacks are part of sectarian violence and religiously motivated because of his role in the Shia community in Pakistan and his involvement with the Imamia Students Organisation (ISO). Under the circumstances it is not possible to protect him.
The applicant provided a copy of handwritten notes from [Hospital 1], Rawalpindi dated [date] August 2012 at 10.20am. It notes that it was some kind of religious quarrel, [injuries deleted] and listed treatment for home.
The applicant provided an undated letter from Tehreek e Nafaaz e Fiqah Jafria (Pakistan) (TNFJ) stating he was an active member who received life threats and was unable to move around freely and left for his safety.
According to the delegate’s decision, the applicant indicted he became involved with TNFJ in 2009 after completing his studies [and] returning to Rawalpindi. He indicated he worked with three to four organisations but most of his work was for the TNFJ. He was also involved with the ISO [while] at school. He indicated he met them while travelling from Rawalpindi to school in Islamabad each day and became involved and hung banners and gave posters to people. He provided a basic description of the TNFJ. He participated in meetings of the Mukhtar Students Association (MSA). He indicated he just assisted and did not hold any particular role. The delegate assessed the applicant as at the most a low level member of the ISO and TFNJ.
The applicant raised a new claim during the interview that he was physically attacked outside the family home by some men. His neighbours heard his cries for help and helped him. He indicated he did not know what group if any these men belonged to. He also claimed that in 2010 he was assisting during Shia Muhurram celebration when he was pushed off the stage by some men and suffered [injuries]. Some graffiti was posted near his home denigrating Shias.
He described the incident with 5 men on his way home from the [shops] after prayers in August 2012 when he returned to Pakistan for his brothers’ weddings and his father was ill. His cousin pushed one of the men and the applicant ran away and as he rounded a corner collided with others and the men caught up and proceeded to kick and punch him. The applicant claimed the two men chasing him kicked and punched [him]. The delegate found it was a random attack. The applicant had credibility concerns over aspects of the applicant’s claims and raised with the applicant concerns over the letter alleged to be provided by the police.
The delegate refers to the applicant, despite claiming to fear harm if returned to Pakistan, attempted to return to Pakistan in 2013 when he was stopped by the authorities as his visa had been cancelled. He then claimed protection some 12 months after the 2012 attack and a few days after being told his visa had been cancelled.
The delegate gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepted he was involved in an altercation outside the family home over religion, had an altercation with young Sunni men whilst preparing the stage and another physical altercation with Sunni men in August 2012. However, the delegate found these were random attacks rather than targeting of the applicant.
The applicant also raised his fear of returning to Pakistan after spending time in a western country. The delegate found on the basis of the country information the applicant did not fear any harm if returned to Pakistan.
The applicant told the hearing that all his brothers now reside in Australia. His father makes all the decisions for him. He has no idea whether he is a target but he is Shia and he has problems because he is Shia. He is the youngest son and his father made the decision to send him to Australia. His father and older brother made all the travel and visa arrangements through an agent. He tried to return to Pakistan in October 2013 as his father was ill and wanted to see him but his visa was cancelled and he could not depart the country.[Sentence deleted]. He told the Tribunal that he completed his certificate in [a field of study]and enrolled in [An Australian College]to complete a [Diploma]. He studied three semesters but failed two subjects and was unable to move forward. He returned to Pakistan but when he returned could not concentrate on his study. He did not receive the letter advising of the cancellation but is positive he advised them of his new address. He has worked in various jobs while in Australia. His father and brother have also financially supported him. He has not had work rights and has not been successful in any applications and cannot study.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he has some mental health issues and had been to the doctor who told him to go outside and do some activities. He does nothing and it is depressing. The whole process has been difficult. He cannot work and cannot study and gets up and there is nothing to do and it is wearing. He had issues with his older brother and had to move out and lived with friends but now lives with his other brother. He is now getting on better with his older brother.
The applicant’s brother told the Tribunal that the applicant was fearful of returning. He sought information on other types of visas should this application not be successful. He also told the Tribunal that he obtained the letter from the police for the applicant. He told the Tribunal that for people like them, they could not lodge a FIR as the police would require payment and then would not take the information. The Tribunal indicated that country information indicated FIRs were easily lodged and while corruption was an issue in Pakistan, it was an issue for everyone. The Tribunal indicated its concern that he indicated the letter was obtained for the purpose of lodging the application yet it was dated [August] 2012 which was the date of the claimed incident. The Tribunal indicated that it would have thought the letter would be dated the date it was obtained. The applicant’s brother indicated he was unable to explain why it was so dated.
The applicant told the Tribunal that their representative told them he could easily prove he had been attacked if he has evidence so he asked his father who provided everything. Their representative told them to get a police report.
The Tribunal understands the process of applying for protection can be difficult and stressful for applicants. The Tribunal was satisfied the applicant understood the nature of the hearing and the process and was able to participate in an effective and meaningful way in the hearing.
The applicant fears harm because of his Shia religion and his involvement with the ISO and TNFJ and MSA. He fears harm from Sunni extremist groups including Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ).
He told the Tribunal that it is not safe for him to return, it was not safe to do anything in Pakistan. His father would never allow him out. He was [age] years old and saw others having a good life but his father would not let him go out. The applicant claimed it was because he was a Syed and a Shia that he was unable to go out. He is fearful of returning as he is Shia and he cannot live over there. The applicant told the Tribunal he would rather live with his father as he has a better set up than here but his father sent him to Australia to be safe. His brother told the Tribunal that they were not active in the Shia community but were Shia Muslims. He told the Tribunal that 2010 was very bad for Shia Muslims in Pakistan and his family decided to disperse. He agreed with country information that the situation was improving but still not safe for Shia people.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain why he was fearful of returning to Pakistan and to explain past incidents that had happened to him because he is a Syed and a Shia.
The applicant explained that as a Syed he is respected as a descendent of Mohammad and he can be identified by his name as a Shia. However, people would not speak to him with respect, would make fun of him and make rude jokes because he was a Syed. People identified him as a Shia because of his name and were rude and offensive to him.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information that indicated Syed, Sayid, Saeed refer to those who claim direct descent from the Prophet Mohammad and confers social prestige on an individual, indicating respect for that family.[1] However, DFAT reports that the name Syed, Sayyid are used by both members of the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam.[2] The applicant told the Tribunal that he is a Shia and a Syed and that is why he is a target. Syed is a Shia name and respected by Shias but because he is a Syed, he is treated badly.
[1] Rahman, T 2015, Names: A Study of Personal Names, Identity, and Power in Pakistan, Oxford University Press, Karachi, pp.60-61 <CISEC96CF14242>
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2016, DFAT Thematic Report - Shias in Pakistan, 15 January, p.6
The Tribunal sought information from him about his activities with the ISO. The applicant responded that he was young and was a member like other students. He just did what others did and received instructions from the older students. He told the Tribunal that he was just a member and did not hold any positions.
The Tribunal sought information from the applicant about his membership of the TNFJ and MSA and was told he joined because others did and was just a normal member. He went to mosque regularly and would go with the family on a Friday and his father organised family activities during holy months.
The Tribunal sought information from the applicant about his claims of past harm and had to prompt him on several occasions to obtain information from him. The applicant told the Tribunal he was assaulted many times because of his name. He was attacked once when he returned to Pakistan for 10 days in 2012. He was attacked by a group of people as he was returning from the mosque when he was with his cousin and they tried to run away. He was injured and went to hospital. They went to the police who said they were Shia and he might have been attacked because he was Shia. The Tribunal referred to his evidence that he claimed he did not know who attacked him but the police letter indicates the LeJ as the attackers. The applicant told the Tribunal that the police know these things and who the attackers are as they are the bad guys and the police know that.
The applicant told the Tribunal that their representative told them he could easily prove he had been attacked if he has evidence so he asked his father who provided everything. Their representative told them to get a police report.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant claims to fear harm because of his ethnicity as a Shia Muslim and finds on the basis of the applicant’s evidence that focused on his fear of harm because of his religion as a Shia Muslim that the applicant’s claim is on the basis of his religion and not his ethnicity.
Refugee claims
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Shia Muslim.
Country information referred to below indicates that while they still operated, student unions were banned until March 2008. The country information also indicates that 50% to 70% of all Shia students are members of the ISO which operates in all four provinces and that student unions predominately exist in universities and colleges.
The Tribunal accepts on the basis of the country information that 50% to 70 of Shia students become involved with the ISO, MSA and/or TNFJ while students that the applicant also joined these organisations while he was studying in Pakistan. The applicant’s evidence was that as a member he did as instructed by others, did not hold any positions and was just a member. He told the Tribunal he joined because others did. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that his membership of the TNFJ would have been for a short period as he indicated he joined because others did in late 2009 and he departed for Australia in July 2010.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant developed any sort of profile for the short period he was involved with the TNFJ because his involvement was for a short period and during that time his tasks were very low level and limited. The Tribunal does not accept on the basis of the applicant’s description of the tasks he completed while a member of the ISO, MSA or TNFJ that he developed a profile above others that caused him to be targeted by Sunni extremist groups. The Tribunal does not accept on the basis of the evidence before it, that the applicant has a profile of any sort with the ISO, MSA, TNFJ or any other Shia organisation that would warrant him being targeted by the LeJ or any Sunni extremist organisations.

The evidence from the applicant and his brother indicate that the applicant and his family are not high profile members of the Shia community. The evidence indicates that while they are Shia and attend mosque regularly and participate in Shia religious festivals, they are not active in the Shia community. Based on the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant and his family do not have a public profile as Shia Muslims or as a Shia activists or any other sort of profile as a Shia Muslim that would warrant the applicant or his family being targeted by the LeJ or any Sunni extremist organisations or other Sunni Muslims for any reason.
The applicant claims that when he has to return to Pakistan it has to be in secret and not even the extended family are aware of his return. The applicant told the Tribunal he returned in August 2012 for his brother’s wedding and was trying to return in October 2013. The Tribunal notes from the applicant’s evidence that he also attended mosque on a regular basis and in August 2012 was with his cousins when he claims to have been attacked. The Tribunal does not accept on the basis of the applicant’s evidence that his return to Pakistan was kept secret as his evidence clearly indicates that he participated in family events such as weddings and continued to attend mosque with extended family members.
The applicant claims that informers continue to seek his whereabouts. As the Tribunal does not accept he has any profile that would warrant him being targeted by any Sunni extremist organisation, the Tribunal does not accept that informers are seeking his whereabouts to report him to any extremist organisation. The Tribunal also finds that as the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his family have any profile as Shia Muslims or because of the applicant’s involvement in the ISO, MSA or TNFJ that he and his family have received threatening phone calls or threats of any kind for any reason.
The applicant claims that in 2010 he was attacked and pushed off the stage while setting up for the Shia Muhurram. The applicant also claims that he was involved in an altercation with some men outside his home over religion but he did not know who the men were or whether they belonged to any particular militant group. He also claims that at some time anti-Shia sentiment graffiti was posted near his home. The Tribunal considers that if the applicant was targeted for harm because of his involvement in the ISO, MSA or TNFJ or because of his profile as a Shia Muslim, then the militants would have taken greater action to harm him rather than push him off the stage or kicked and punched outside his home or sprayed the wall of his home with anti-Shia sentiment. The Tribunal finds that if the LeJ or any Sunni extremist groups wished to target the applicant for harm, they had the opportunity and means to do so on a number of occasions during the time the applicant lived in Pakistan prior to his departure in July 2010.
The applicant also claims that in August 2012 during his visit to Pakistan, he and his cousins were attacked as they were returning from the [shops] after morning prayers at the mosque. The Tribunal for the reasons as discussed has not accepted that the applicant had any profile as a Shia or because of his involvement with the ISO, MSA or TNFJ that would cause him to be targeted and had been absent from Pakistan for over two years at the time of the attack. The Tribunal does not accept that this was anything more than a random attack. If they were genuinely targeting the applicant, he would have suffered greater harm than simple cuts on his hand and face (according to the medical certificate provided), especially as he claims he has been targeted by the LeJ or Sunni extremist groups to be harmed/killed.
The Tribunal has concerns as to the letter provided by the applicant from the police in relation to his attack in August 2012. The Tribunal was told that their representative told them he could easily prove he had been attacked if he has evidence so he spoke to his father who obtained the evidence provided. The Tribunal raised concerns that they claimed they obtained the letter from the police following the advice from their representative but the letter was dated [August] 2012 and indicates that LeJ attacked him when his evidence was that he did not know who attacked him. The applicant’s evidence was also that when they went to the police after the incident the police told them it was because he was Shia. The Tribunal also notes that the letter refers to the applicant receiving threats via cellular phone and graffiti over the outside wall of his house a week earlier to the incident. The letter also refers to the applicant being an active member of ISO yet he had been absent from Pakistan for over two years at the time of the August 2012 incident and not involved in any activities with the ISO, MSA and TNFJ. When asked about whether an FIR had been lodged at the time of the incident, the Tribunal was told that the police don’t take FIRs from Shia people unless a bribe is paid. The Tribunal gives little weight to the letter as evidence the applicant was attacked by the LeJ in August 2012 or has been threatened by militants or is an active member of the ISO. The evidence before the Tribunal is that a FIR was not lodged in relation to the attack on the applicant and the letter was obtained on the advice of their representative around the time of lodging the application for protection, yet is dated the date of the alleged attack and not the date it was obtained. The evidence before the Tribunal is also that the applicant did not know who attacked him and the Tribunal does not accept the claim that as the police know these things better, they put down it was the LeJ as the attackers.
The Tribunal has also taken into account the fact that the applicant did not lodge his protection visa application until after his student visa been cancelled and sometime after the incident in August 2012 when he claims he feared for his life as he was being targeted by Sunni extremists. The Tribunal also notes that he lodged his application after being advised at the airport on his return to Pakistan that his visa was cancelled. The Tribunal notes that it is legitimate to take into account an applicant's delay in lodging an application for a protection visa in assessing the genuineness, or at least the depth, of the applicant's claimed fear of persecution. (per Heerey J, Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347). When asked why he delayed if he was so fearful for his safety if he returned to Pakistan, the applicant stated he saw a lawyer who suggested he wait until his visa expired before applying and he thought he could extend his student visa. He did not know his visa had been cancelled and he was sure he advised the department of his change of address. The Tribunal does not accept that a person fearing serious or significant harm on return to his home country would not take steps on his return to Australia to avail himself of Australia’s protection. The Tribunal finds that this delay undermines the credibility of the applicant’s claim to fear harm in Pakistan.
The Tribunal also notes that despite fearing harm because of his Shia religion and threats from militants the applicant returned to Pakistan in August 2012. The Tribunal also notes that despite claiming to have been attacked because of his Shia religion during his visit in August 2012 and fearing for his life, he was returning to Pakistan in October 2013 when he was told that his visa was cancelled and he would be unable to return to Australia if he departed. He then applied for a protection visa. The Tribunal considers the willingness of the applicant to return to Pakistan in October 2013 undermines the credibility of his claims to fear harm in Pakistan.
Based on the applicant’s written and oral evidence the Tribunal finds that the applicant and his family are active in the practise of his Shia faith and regularly attend mosque. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would continue to practise his faith and attend mosque if he returned to Pakistan.
While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been involved in random assaults and was attacked with his cousins when returning home one morning from the [shops] after attending mosque, the Tribunal considers that these are random attacks that need to be considered in the light of overall country information concerning Shias when considering his future prospects. For the reasons as discussed above, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant has any profile whatsoever that will cause him to be targeted on his return to Pakistan.
The Tribunal accepts that when he returns he may go to Shia mosques and religious gatherings. The Tribunal has taken into account the country information that indicate attacks on Shias do occur in Pakistan and that there is a high level of generalised violence in Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts the country information that indicates Sunni and Shia mosques in Pakistan are clearly distinguishable and the names of mosques can also identify them as Shia. The Tribunal acknowledges that the visibility of Shias increases when they are engaged in Shia religious festivals including Moharram, and where a number of Shias participate in ‘Ashura’ processions where they mourn the death of Hussain at Karbala and pilgrimages to Iran.
The Tribunal has have taken into account reports that militants have conducted large-scale attacks on Shia mosques and religious processions and Shia enclaves. However, this needs to be considered in the context of country information that around 15-30% of the Pakistan’s very large population of 190 million are Shias. The UNHCR have said that members of the Shia community in urban centres may depending on their individual circumstances be in need of international refugee protection on account of their religion and/or (imputed) political opinion. The UNHCR did not say that all Shias in Pakistan are in need of international refugee protection. DFAT have commented that there are no legal restrictions on freedom of religion for Shias in Pakistan. They have stated that there are no laws or Government policies that discriminate against Shias (i.e. ‘official’ discrimination) and that broadly speaking, there is little community prejudice (i.e. societal discrimination) that would limit opportunities for Shias in daily life. Further, that there are large communities of Shia in many parts of the country, they have mosques and openly worship and practise their faith. The evidence also indicates that Shia communities are generally integrated and live side by side and significant numbers are found in many areas throughout Pakistan. DFAT has assessed that relative to other parts of Pakistan, Shias face lower threats of generalised and sectarian violence in Punjab and there are areas where Sunnis and Shias live together.
The applicant has not claimed that he has been prevented from practising his Shia faith in Pakistan. Having considered the nature of the extremist attacks and the frequency of attacks together with the numbers of victims in the material provided by DFAT the Tribunal is satisfied that Shia can and do openly practise their faith in Pakistan and their right to do so is enshrined in the country’s constitution and law.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is identifiable as a Shia Muslim by his name. While DFAT indicates that both Sunni and Shia Muslims use the name Syed, DFAT comments that Shias are identifiable by commonly used Shia names including Syed[3]. Given country information cited regarding the size of the Shia Muslim population in Pakistan, the treatment of Shias in Pakistan and the chances that Shias will face treatment amounting to serious harm, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm because he is identifiable as a Syed Shia Muslim.
[3] DFAT Thematic report, Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016, sections 3.5-3.8.
DFAT assesses that there is no specific discrimination against Shias in relation to education and health care and that Shias do not suffer greater economic disadvantage than other groups in Pakistan. DFAT comments that credible human rights groups have told it that there is no evidence of discrimination against Shias in gaining admission to the civil service, police, military or private sector, and comments that Shias are well-represented among high level professionals in Pakistan such as doctors and lawyers[4]. The applicant’s evidence was that his father was employed in the government sector. Based on the DFAT advice the Tribunal finds that any anti-Shia discrimination and prejudice the applicant may suffer in the future would not impact on the applicant to the extent that he would suffer persecution amounting to serious harm in relation to his education or access to health care or employment in Pakistan.
[4] DFAT Thematic report, Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016, sections 3.9-3.10 and 3.13.
The Tribunal finds that the weight of country information indicates that the improvement in the security situation since 2014 has been significant and sustained. The Tribunal finds there has been a significant and sustained improvement in the security situation since 2014 following the commencement of Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the introduction of the 20-point National Action Plan to counter terrorism, all of which the Tribunal considers are indicative of a determination by the Pakistan government to address terrorism, extremism and sectarian violence in Pakistan. The Tribunal finds that the weight of the country information supports DFAT’s assessment that there is a low risk of sectarian violence for most Shias in Pakistan. While DFAT assesses that there is a moderate risk of sectarian violence for prominent Shias such as high-profile professionals, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not currently, and is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future to become a prominent or high-profile Shia, either individually or cumulatively as a consequence of his involvement with his Shia religion or his profile as a Syed Shia.
In relation to the applicant’s comments about the overall threats to the safety of Shias in Pakistan, the Tribunal finds that, as it has not accepted that the applicant has been specifically targeted for harm by the LeJ or Sunni extremist groups, he does not require individual government protection. In relation to protection provided to the Shia community generally, as discussed with the applicant, DFAT assesses that while capacity constraints limit the federal and provincial governments’ abilities to protect the Shia community, which is large and widely dispersed, DFAT assesses that Pakistani authorities are broadly willing to protect Shia communities[5].
[5] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 15 January 2016, section 5.2 and DFAT Thematic Report, Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016, sections 5.1- 5.3.
The Tribunal has considered the submission by the applicant and his brother that the Pakistani authorities are unwilling to enforce the law to protect Shias such as the applicant. In this regard, the Tribunal gives weight to the fact that, following the army school massacre in Peshawar in December 2014 it was the Prime Minister of Pakistan who introduced the 20-point National Action Plan to counter terrorism, following two urgently convened all-party conferences which he chaired personally[6]. Also relevant is that included among the 20-points of focus in the plan is: Ensuring against the re-emergence of proscribed organisations; Zero tolerance for militancy in Punjab; Registration and regulation of religious seminaries; and dealing firmly with sectarian terrorists. The Tribunal considers that the origin and focus of the 20-point National Action Plan as well as Operation Zarb-e-Azb and other actions addressing militancy indicate that the Pakistan government generally is committed to addressing extremist and sectarian violence now and into the future. The Tribunal also notes DFAT reports that during times where Shias are more prominent such as during Ashura celebrations, there is heightened state protection during these celebrations to mitigate the threats associated with this greater exposure.[7] The Tribunal considers that the DFAT information indicates that while there are limits to the protection provided by the Pakistan police and security forces, protection is being offered that is assisting to mitigate the risks faced by the Shia community and that this contributes to the Tribunal’s findings that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm should he return to Pakistan now or in the foreseeable future. In this regard the Tribunal also notes DFAT’s advice that Shia communities frequently make provisions for their own security. This includes physical security of Shia mosques, self-protection ‘scout’ units and lines of security to search those attending Ashura processions.
[6] Society of Higher Education & Industrial Research, National Action Plan. Sourced at
[7] DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan 15 January 2016, sections 4.1 – 4.3 and 5.1 – 5.3.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence provided by the applicant showing some attacks against Shias in Pakistan as a whole, but as discussed with the applicant, the evidence indicates and DFAT reports that there were relatively few major sectarian attacks in recent years. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will have to modify his religious practices upon his return to Pakistan or that his involvement in a Shia organisation will result in a real chance that he will be harmed upon his return to Pakistan.
As also stated above, the Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant has previously been targeted for his Shia religion. Thus, taking into account the size of the Shia community, the low number of attacks and violence against Shias, as well as the evidence indicating that in many areas Shias and Sunnis generally live together without any significant issues, the Tribunal is satisfied that the chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm for reasons of his religion, as a result of generalised sectarian violence or a specific attack, is remote. While accepting that the applicant has been assaulted in the past due to criminal activity, the Tribunal considers based on the DAFT reports as to the improvement in security in Pakistan since 204, that the chance that the applicant would be the victim of criminal or political violence in Pakistan is also remote.
Therefore, based on the independent country information and his individual circumstances, the Tribunal finds that that the applicant does not face a real chance of any harm in the reasonably foreseeable future from the LeJ or any other Sunni extremist groups or any person associated with a Sunni extremist group, the state or anyone else because of his Shia religion or because his name readily identifies him as a Syed Shia.
The applicant claimed to the delegate that he feared returning to Pakistan because he will be perceived as having lived in a western country and adopted western values, others will perceive him as being wealthy and he will be targeted for kidnapping and extortion. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his fears of returning because he has lived in a western country and was told that he did not raise it.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information indicating the western influence is pervasive in many parts of Pakistan, particularly in large urban centres. Many Pakistanis have relatives in western countries ad many aspire to migrate abroad. Those living abroad frequently return to visit relatives. DFAT assess that persons returning after spending time in the west are not subject to discrimination or violence on the basis of having spent time in the west.[8]
[8] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 15 January 2016, section 3.62.

Based on the independent country information and his individual circumstances, the Tribunal finds that that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future from any Sunni extremist groups or any person associated with a Sunni extremist group, the state or any group or organisation or anyone else because he has spent time in a western country.
Considering the applicant’s claims both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal concludes that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution from Sunni extremist groups including the LeJ and/or their sympathisers due to his Shia Muslim religion and/or an actual or imputed political opinion of opposition to the LeJ and other Sunni extremist groups and their sympathisers on account of his religious activities, because his name readily identifies him as a Syed Shia, because he resided in a western country or for any other Convention reason, if he returned to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied the applicant is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. This means he does not satisfy the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a).
Complementary Protection
As the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a refugee as defined in the Refugees Convention, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(aa), whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in subsection 36(2A) of the Act.
In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition.[9]
[9] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagott JJ at [297], Flick J at [342].
For these reasons as discussed above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has any profile whatsoever such that he would be targeted for harm by the LeJ or any other Sunni extremist group or person associated with a Sunni extremist group. Therefore the Tribunal does not accept based on the country information and his individual circumstances that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm from the LeJ or any other Sunni extremist group or person associated with a Sunni extremist group.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm from Sunni extremist groups including the LeJ and/or their associates due to his Shia Muslim religion or because his name readily identifies him as a Syed Shia if he returned to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore the Tribunal does not accept based on the country information and his individual circumstances that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm from Sunni extremist groups including the LeJ and/or their associates due to his Shia Muslim religion or because his name readily identifies him as a Syed Shia if he returned to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future
As indicated above, the Tribunal accepts that there have been continued attacks and killings of members of the Shia community. The Tribunal also accepts that Shia neighbourhoods, Shia places of worship and their processions have also been targeted by militants. However, for the reasons outlined earlier, the Tribunal does not accept based on the country information and his individual circumstances that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm in the context of these incidents of sectarian violence or for reasons arising from the applicant’s Shia faith. Nor does the Tribunal accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for reasons arising from his Shia faith.
For the reasons as discussed above, the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from any Sunni extremist groups or any person associated with a Sunni extremist group, the state or any group or organisation or anyone else because he has spent time in a western country, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan.
In considering the risk of the applicant suffering significant harm as set out in s.36(2A) of the Act, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, the Tribunal has also considered the DFAT advice regarding the level of generalised violence in Pakistan including in his home area in Punjab. The Tribunal notes the DFAT advice that there has been a significant reduction in generalised violence throughout Pakistan since the commencement Operation Zarb-e-Azb. The Tribunal finds that the risk of the applicant suffering significant harm as a consequence of generalised violence due to security operations or criminal activity is remote. In this regard the Tribunal gives weight to country information indicating, consistent with the DFAT advice, that due to the impact of Operation Zarb-e-Azb, the level of serious crime, including homicide, has substantially reduced throughout Pakistan[10].
[10] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 15 January 2016, section 2.31.
Consequently, and having regard to the findings of fact set out above, the Tribunal has concluded that the risk of significant harm to the applicant as a consequence of the applicant’s Shia Muslim religion and because his name readily identifies him as a Syed Shia and in the context of generalised violence, including from the security forces and from criminal elements and as a returnee from a western country, is remote. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from Sunni extremist groups including the LeJ and/or their associates, government forces, criminal elements or anyone else as part of the generalised or sectarian violence, or for any other reason, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively, and it finds there is no basis for the applicant's claims to fear significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing, that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A).
CONCLUSION
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).
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).
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Amanda Goodier
Member

ANNEXURE A
RELEVANT LAW
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.
Refugee criterion
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).
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.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
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.[11]
[11] DFAT Country Report Pakistan 15 January 2016, DFAT Thematic Information Report Shias in Pakistan 15 January 2016.
ANNEXURE B
Country Information
Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Fiqah-e-Jafariya (TNFJ)
The TNFJ was formed in 1979 under the leadership of Allama Jaffer Hussein to advance the cause of the Shia community in Pakistan.[12] When Allama Jaffer Hussein died in 1983, the TNFJ split into two factions; a more religiously inclined faction led by Agha Syed Hamid Ali Shah Moosavi, and a more politically inclined faction led by Arif Al Husseini.[13] The politically inclined faction of Husseini eventually received the backing of Ayatolla Khomeini in Iran, and took precedence, changing its name to Tehrik-e-Jafaria Pakistan (TJP) in the late 1980s.[14] When Al Husseini was assassinated in 1988, Allama Sajid Naqvi became the leader of this group, and was reported to continue in this role, as at January 2011.[15] A report by the International Crisis Group on Islamic parties in Pakistan describes the TNFJ as a sectarian party that has avoided electoral politics and direct confrontation with the majority Sunni community. The report notes that according to the group’s present leader Agha Syed Hamid Ali Shah Mossavi, the TNFJ’s main goal is to lobby the government for increased protection of Shia rights. To achieve this goal the report states that:
[12] Roy, O 2002, ‘Islamic Radicalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan: Writenet paper No. 06/2001’, UNHCR Refworld website, January < Accessed 24 October 2008
[13] Rana, Muhammad Amir 2005, A to Z of Jehadi Organizations in Pakistan, trans. Saba Ansari, Mashal Publications, Lahore, p.405 – RRT Library
[14] Behuria, Ashok 2002, ‘Many Pakistans within Pakistan’, International Centre for Peace Studies website < Accessed 30 October 2008 <Attachment>
[15] ‘Allama Sajid Naqvi’ 2011, Right To Information Pakistan (RTi), 8 January < Accessed 25 February 2011
In 2005, it presented a fourteen-point charter of demands dealing primarily with Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar, during which Shias commemorate, through public displays of mourning, the battle of Karbala (680, in Iraq), in which the Prophet’s grandson, Hussain, and his family were killed.170 The demands included honouring a 1985 agreement in which the government promised the Shia community to permit processions and other rites during Muharram, and preventing sectarian violence.[16]
According to information on the TNFJ website, the group’s headquarters is at 1129-B, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, with provincial offices located in the Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir, Sakardu and Peshawar.[17] Numerous reports were located regarding the activities of the TNFJ in Rawalpindi, including meetings and protest rallies, and the organisation of public Shi’a religious rituals such as Azadari processions conducted during the month of Muhurram.[18]
Imamia Students Organisation (ISO)
It is worth noting a report published in the Daily Times on 30 March 2008, which states that student organizations were banned in educational institutions in Pakistan in 1984 by then president General Ziaul Haq, and that this ban was lifted by Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani in March 2008. The article also remarks that some student organizations had been active in spite of the ban:
LAHORE: Student unions distributed sweets amongst students on Saturday following the speech by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani in which he announced lifting the ban on student unions in educational institutions.

…Former Pakistani president Gen Ziaul Haq had banned student unions in educational institutions in 1984.

[16] International Crisis Group 2011, Islamic Parties in Pakistan, Asia Report No. 216, 12 December, p.19 < Accessed 13 August 2012
[17] Tehreek Nafaz-e-Fiqh-e Jafaria n.d., TNFJ Contact Info < Accessed 13 August 2012
[18] Muharram is the first month of the Muslim calendar. “The event marks the anniversary of the Battle of Karbala when Imam Hussain ibn Ali, the grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and a Shia Imam, was killed by the forces of the second Umayad caliph Yazid I. See ‘Mourning of Muharram’ n.d., Wikipedia < Accessed 28 February 2011
[19] ‘Student unions ecstatic at lifting of ban’ 2008, Daily Times, 30 March
…The National Students Federation (NSF), Islami Jamiat Talaba (IJT), Muslim Student Federation (MSF), Anjuman Talaba Islamia (ATI), People’s Students Federation (PSF), Imamia Students Organisation (ISO), Mustafvi Students Movement (MSM) and the recently formed Insaaf Students Federation are among political groups active in student politics in Punjab. Although there was a ban on them, elements belonging to these groups were active in various capacities in educational institutions.[19]
Shi’a Muslims
Shi’as
Sources that discuss the size and distribution of Pakistan’s Shi’a population employ estimates; neither Pakistan’s 2011 or 1998 censuses required Muslims to nominate their Islamic sect or school of thought.[20] These estimates vary significantly. According to the CIA World Factbook, updated on 5 February 2013, Muslims comprise 96.4 per cent of the population of Pakistan, with the split “Sunni 85-90%, Shi’a 10-15%”.[21] A January 2013 article from the Pakistan Observer stated that Shi’as “make up about 30 percent of Pakistan’s mostly Sunni Muslim population of about 190 million people.”[22] In a June 2012 article from the journal Current Trends in Islamic Ideology,[23] it was stated that the Shi’a population comprised “some 20 per cent of the country’s 173 million”.[24] A March 2012 BBC Monitoring Research report stated that “[t]he Shi’a Muslim community accounts for 15 per cent of Pakistan’s population”[25], while the US Department of State reported in 2012 that Pakistan’s Muslim population is approximately 75 per cent Sunni and 25 per cent Shi’a[26]
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) May 2012 Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan states the following regarding attacks on Shi’as:
The largest Muslim minority in Pakistan, Shi’as, are the target of violent attacks by Sunni fundamentalist groups throughout the country.
…In the last year sectarian violence targeting the Shi’a minority, including through attacks on Shi’a processions and religious gatherings and sites, reportedly continued. Such attacks were carried out predominantly in the North-West of the country – including in Dera Ismail Khan, Hangu, Kohat and Tank districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, and Kurram and Orakzai Agencies in FATA – as well as in urban centres throughout the country – including Gilgit (Northern Areas), Lahore (Punjab province), Karachi (Sindh province) and Quetta (Balochistan province). Sectarian violence has resulted in hundreds of deaths and large-scale displacements from Kurram.[27]
[20] Population Census Organization 2011, 6th Population & Housing Census, Government of Pakistan, q.6 < Accessed 21 March 2012; Population Census Organization 1998, Population By Religion, Government of Pakistan < Accessed 19 May 2011.
[21] Central Intelligence Agency 2013, The World Factbook – South Asia: Pakistan, 5 February < Accessed 20 February 2013.
[22] Khan, A. Z. 2013, ‘The death dharna’, Pakistan Observer, 15 January < Accessed 21 February 2013.
[23] Current Trends in Islamic Ideology is published by the Centre on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan, independent policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom”: Hudson Institute n.d., Mission Statement < Accessed 21 February 2013.
[24] Vatanka, A. 2012, ‘The Guardian of Pakistan’s Shi’a’, Current Trends in Islamic Ideology, Vol. 13< Accessed 1 June 2012.
[25] ‘Pakistan press urges action against “monster” of sectarianism after bus attack’ 2012, BBC Monitoring Research, 2 March.
[26] US Department of State 2012, Pakistan – 2011 Report on International Religious Freedom, 30 July, Section I.
[27] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 2012, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, HCR/EG/PAK/12/02, 14 May, pp.37-39 < Accessed 17 May 2012.

The DFAT Country Information Report – Pakistan – 15 January 2016 states the following in relation to the TTP:
2.32 The most potent militant group in Pakistan remains the TTP – a loose network of Sunni militant groups which have splintered since the commencement of Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Although they are ideologically aligned, the TTP maintains an identity distinct from the Afghan Taliban, which is widely accepted to have an operational base in Quetta, the capital of Balochistan province.
2.33 The TTP has carried out a number of high profile attacks against government security forces, political rivals, civilian infrastructure, and non-Sunni minorities throughout Pakistan. This includes direct attacks using small arms, suicide bombings, car bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), as well as complex attacks using a combination of these tactics. For example, the TTP has claimed responsibility for attacks against the Pakistan military’s General Headquarters in Rawalpindi in 2010; a naval station in Karachi in 2011; Karachi Airport in June 2014; a military-run public school in Peshawar in December 2014; and an Air Force base camp in Peshawar in September 2015. According to the South Asian Terrorism Portal (SATP), there were 3,682 fatalities from terrorist-related violence in 2015. This included 940 civilians; 339 security forces personnel; and 2,403 insurgents.

2014, Dawn, National Action Plan hailed, 26 December. Sourced at

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Jurisdiction
Procedural Fairness
Statutory Construction
Standing

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

1510210 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3050

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 342

[2017] AATA 3050

29 May 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing