1512101 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant from Pakistan. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to their religious beliefs as a minority Christian in a Muslim-majority country, and their relationship to their father, who had successfully sought asylum elsewhere. The delegate had accepted the applicant was a practising Christian and a member of a particular social group, and that the applicant's father had faced harassment. However, the delegate found the applicant's claims about the disappearance of their brother lacked credibility and that the applicant had only encountered low-level harassment in their home village, subsequently moving to other locations without further threats.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution, such that Australia had protection obligations towards them under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, considering the evidence of country conditions for religious minorities in Pakistan, and determining if the applicant's fear was objectively reasonable. The Tribunal also had to consider the validity of a certificate issued under s 438(1)(a) of the Act, which sought to restrict the disclosure of certain information, and whether the information covered by the invalid certificate was relevant to the protection claims.

The Tribunal found that a certificate issued under s 438(1)(a) of the Act was invalid because the stated reason for restricting disclosure, relating to internal working documents and business affairs, was insufficient to justify non-disclosure. Following the reasoning in *MZAFZ v MIBP*, the Tribunal determined this information was not relevant to the protection obligations. After considering additional evidence, including statutory declarations and statements from family members, and submissions from a migration agent, the Tribunal was satisfied that each applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants satisfied the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision under review was remitted.