1512973 (Refugee)

1512973 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4275 (7 September 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1512973
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan
MEMBER:James Silva
DATE:7 September 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 07 September 2018 at 4:07pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion – Parsi – Zoroastrian – member of religious minority – general discrimination and mistreatment – targeted due to perceived wealth – threat of extortion – relative was victim of terrorist incident – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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

The applicant is a man in his [age bracket deleted] from Pakistan.
The applicant first arrived in Australia on 31 January 2008, as the holder of a Student visa. He most recently entered Australia on 28 February 2011. He applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 30 March 2015. On 31 August 2015, the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the delegate) refused the application pursuant to s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
This is an application for review of that decision.
The applicant attended a Tribunal hearing on 5 June 2018.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant. This occurs if the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, if he is entitled to complementary protection. A summary and excerpts of the relevant law are at Attachments A and B.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Protection claims
The applicant is a Parsi and Zoroastrian. He claims to fear persecution in Pakistan from the Muslim majority, who have become increasingly strident and violent towards minorities, including the small Parsi community. He claims that the Pakistan authorities are ineffective and corrupt, and provide no real protection for minorities.
Background
The applicant is a [age] year old man from Pakistan. He is a Parsi and follower of the Zoroastrian faith. He gives his languages as English, Gujerati and Urdu.
The applicant was born in Karachi, where he lived in [a Parsi] Compound, in [an area of Karachi]. This is also known as ‘[compound’s name deleted]’, and is one of several Parsi compounds in Karachi. The applicant claimed that [it] is an area in which Muslims predominate.
The applicant attended school in Karachi, completing his Higher School Certificate in [year], and later an Advanced Diploma in [a particular discipline] in 2006. After his HSC, he worked for several years [in a voluntary position] at [a community centre]), which involved members of various communities. From May 2007 until January 2008, he worked [in another role] in [Workplace 1]. He resigned the position to come to Australia.
The applicant is unmarried. His widowed father lives in the compound in Karachi. His father is a retired [person], and is now partly disabled. He relies on an aunt and other relatives who also live in the compound. The applicant has an older brother living in [Country 1]. The brother obtained permanent residency in [Country 1] as a dependant of his wife, who is [an occupation].
The applicant has a cousin in Australia, who had arrived from Pakistan a year before him and now has permanent residency. The cousin’s presence in Australia had influenced his decision to come to Australia. He has other cousins living in North America.
The applicant has held numerous Pakistan passports, including ones issued in [date] 2000 and [date] 2005 (which the Pakistan Consulate-General had renewed); and most recently, one that was issued in [date] 2014, valid until [date] 2024. On his protection visa application form, he indicated prior travel to [another country] for tourism in 1996; to Iran for a pilgrimage in mid-2000; and to [Country 1] in June/July 2014, as a participant in [a sports event]. After first arriving in Australia in January 2008, he returned to Pakistan in January/February 2011 to visit family.
The applicant first arrived in Australia in 31 January 2008 on a Student visa, and continued with his studies until 2014, when he completed a Bachelor Degree, majoring in [a particular discipline]. He was unable to proceed to do his Masters degree, as he could not afford the overseas students fee or obtain financial support from a Parsi scholarship fund in Pakistan.
As noted above, the applicant lodged a Protection visa application on 30 March 2015, more than four years after his last entry into Australia. The applicant is working as [an occupation] in Australia, and provided a reference letter from his current employer.
Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following relevant material: -
§ The applicant’s protection visa application form, lodged on 24 March 2015. The applicant’s reasons for seeking protection are recorded on the application form.
§ Identity documents:
-   The applicant provided partial photocopies of his current passport, issued in [date] 2014; and earlier passports issued in [date] 2000 and [month] 2005. The latter passport indicates that the Pakistan Consulate-General in Sydney had renewed it in [date] 2010.
-   Certificates relating to the applicant’s work in Pakistan as a [Workplace 1]employee and [in a voluntary role].
-   Copies of national ID card and [a] Police clearance certificate (October 2014).
-   Copy of Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) check, done on 4 March 2015.
§ Supporting documents:
-   Medical discharge card for [Relative A], dated 17 November 2005, for treatment to [an injury] following a bomb blast.
-   Copy of a text of First Information Report (FIR) done in Karachi on 8 December 2007 (English translation of a transcript, notarised in February 2015).
-   Statements of support from relatives of the applicant’s [names deleted].
§ Country information:
-   Various press reports on the situation of religious minorities in Pakistan.
-   A newspaper article dated 29 March 2016 reports Muslim extremists declaring a new campaign against religious minorities, including Zoroastrians.[1]
§ The applicant attended a protection visa interview (‘Department interview’) on 6 August 2015, a recording of which is on the Department file.
§ The delegate’s protection visa assessment record (‘delegate’s decision record’) of 31 August 2015.
§ Review application form, attached to which is a copy of the delegate’s decision record.
§ The Tribunal obtained from the Department a copy of the passenger cards that the applicant completed on his travel to and from Pakistan in January 2011. The applicant told the Tribunal about the circumstances of his travel, and the completed cards revealed no further information of relevance to this review.
§ A submission of 30 May 2018.
[1] Dawn, Jamaatul Ahrar releases ‘bomber’s picture’: March 2016:
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 June 2018, to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted in English, in which the applicant is fluent.
[Mr B] of [Migration Association 1] represents the applicant in this matter. [Mr B] did not attend the hearing. [Another] registered migration agent [from an agency], who is also a member of [Migration Association 1], accompanied the applicant to the hearing and made submissions on his behalf.
Receiving country
The applicant claims to be a national of Pakistan. He holds a Pakistan passport, having obtained a new passport in October 2014. He speaks Urdu and English, Pakistan’s official languages, as well as Gujerati, one of its minority languages. He provided other documentary evidence from Pakistan and showed his familiarity with that country. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a Pakistan national. Pakistan is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS
Credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence
The Tribunal has taken into account the AAT’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility both in the conduct of the hearing and in evaluating the applicant’s evidence as a whole.
The Tribunal formed the impression that the applicant is genuinely apprehensive about returning to Pakistan, and concerned about the prospects for the Parsi community. There is considerable country information to support these broad concerns. However, the Tribunal formed the impression that he exaggerated and misrepresented some aspects of his claimed personal experiences, for instance by suggesting that incidents were directly relevant to him when this was not the case. This become apparent when, in several instances, he gave the bare bones of a claim, but struggled to provide further details or provide context.
The applicant signalled that he has an occasional stammer, particularly when nervous. There were some minor signs of this at the hearing, but for the main part, his oral evidence in English was fluent and clear. The Tribunal is satisfied that he was able to present his case effectively.
The applicant told the Tribunal that his GP recently referred him to a psychologist, to deal with stress. By way of background, he and his representative said that he had only recently obtained a Medicare card and visited a doctor for treatment for sinus problems, and for a general check-up and blood tests. The applicant said that he had previously suffered anxiety and depression around the time of his mother’s death and funeral. He explained that he was emotional and not thinking straight when he returned to Pakistan in early 2011.
The applicant did not claim, and there is nothing to suggest, that he has any psychological or other health problems that affected his capacity to present his case at hearing, or that have a bearing on the Tribunal’s assessment of his claims and evidence. The Tribunal’s detailed assessment follows.
The applicant’s concerns about his representation at the primary stage
The applicant made a detailed submission to the Tribunal, with supporting documents, alleging misconduct by [Ms C], the registered migration agent who prepared and submitted his Protection visa application. He suggests that this skewed the presentation of his protection claims, and led the delegate to refuse his application.
The Protection visa application, lodged on 24 March 2015, included Form 956 which appointed [Ms C from Migration Association 1], as the applicant’s migration agent and [Mr B] as another person from [Migration Association 1] who may deal with the matter.
According to the applicant’s oral evidence and the documents he submitted to the Tribunal, on 7 March 2015 he signed a Form 956 authorising [Ms C] to act on his behalf. The form gave details of her [registration details], and indicated that she worked for [Migration Association 1].
§ [Ms C] advised [Migration Association 1] by email on 13 March 2015 that she could no longer work for them[2]. The applicant contends that [Ms C] and [Migration Association 1] had an understanding that she could continue to work on the applicant’s papers, but not to submit the application. She submitted the application on 24 March 2014 (without [Migration Association 1]’s knowledge or pursuant to their procedures); she continued to use [the Migration Association 1] email address; and in late April 2015, she asked the applicant to complete a Form 956 which removed references to [Migration Association 1] and [Mr B].
§ The documents show that the applicant was aware of the lodgement of his application. However, he claims that he proceeded on the incorrect belief that [Ms C] was (still) working for [Migration Association 1]. He lodged a complaint with the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) in late 2015. The limited available information indicates that MARA did not investigate the complaint further, for lack of evidence. In late September 2017, [Migration Association 1] also lodged a complaint to MARA, purportedly on the applicant’s behalf. MARA took no further action, as it had already dealt with the matter.
[2] The exchanges as to whether this amounted to an immediate ‘resignation’ or whether she had an ongoing relationship with [Migration Association 1] are ambiguous; it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider these further.
The applicant has not claimed that [Ms C] submitted the application without his knowledge or authorisation, or raised any questions about the validity of his Protection visa application. Rather, his concerns centre on (a) whether she was with [Migration Association 1] on that date, or acting as an independent migration agent; and (b) her alleged failure to inform him of this status. The Tribunal is satisfied that [Ms C] submitted the application with the applicant’s authority, and that it is valid.
The applicant’s current concern appears to be that [Ms C] did not adequately express his protection claims. He contends that it focused too much on the risks associated with his perceived wealth as a Parsi, and did not set out areas of discrimination such as government employment. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has had an opportunity at hearing and in submissions to present a complete and balanced account of his protection claims. It assesses his claims and evidence as a whole, and draws no adverse inferences from any differing emphases in the primary and review stages.
The applicant’s experiences as a Parsi/Zoroastrian
The applicant is a member of the Parsi community, who are a religious minority following the Zoroastrian faith. An Encyclopaedia Britannica entry provides the following entry on the religious group: ‘Parsi, also spelled Parsee, member of a group of followers in India of the Iranian prophet Zoroaster. The Parsis, whose name means ‘Persians’, are descended from Persian Zoroastrians who emigrated to India’.[3] Estimates of the total population of Parsis in Pakistan vary. Government registration documents accounted in 2014 put the estimate at around 4,000 members.[4] The Parsi minority community lives mainly in Karachi.[5]
[3] Cited in Wikipedia’s entry for ‘Parsi, a member of the Zoroastrian community of the Indian subcontinent’
[4] United States Department of State, 2016, ‘2015 Report on International Religious Freedom – Pakistan’, 10 August, <OGD95BE926774>
[5] Minority Rights Group International, 2016, ‘State of the world’s minorities 2015 – Pakistan’, 1 July, p. 3 <CIS38A80121977>
The applicant claims that he and other Parsis are readily identifiable, including because of their Western dress, their Gujerati accent (when speaking Urdu) and their place of worship. To this the Tribunal adds that the concentration of Parsis in defined [community areas] in Karachi also allows them to be identified. Country information indicates that an estimated 20 to 24 million people live in Karachi[6], which has a diverse population. The Tribunal accepts that, despite their small numbers, the Parsi community have distinctive features, and therefore could be readily recognisable.
[6] See, for instance, DFAT report, September 2016
Country information
The Tribunal has before it a range of country information about the Parsi/Zoroastrian community in Pakistan, both from the applicant’s submissions and other materials discussed at hearing. This provides context both for considering his claims of past harm in Karachi, and also for assessing his eligibility for refugee status or complementary protection.
The applicant emphasised during this review his concerns with Pakistan’s treatment of religious minorities. It is well-established that, despite legal guarantees in Pakistan providing for freedom of religion, human rights and religious freedom activists, and members of minority religious groups report a societal climate of intolerance, and express fear about rising Islamic extremism.
However, the Tribunal has found no independent reporting to indicate that there has been specific targeting of the Parsi community in Pakistan for mistreatment, systematic discrimination or harassment[7]. It appreciates the need for caution in interpreting this lack of information, particularly given the small size of the Parsi community and the applicant’s claim that many incidents go unreported, precisely because Parsis feel vulnerable and unprotected. The refugee assessment later in the decision discusses this material in more detail.
[7] The review of independent reporting included the CISNET database; the Google and Bing internet search engines, humanitarian websites including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State, Austrian Centre for Country of Origin & Asylum Research and Documentation, UK Home Office, Jamestown Foundation; the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, UNHCR Refworld, local news sources including Pakistani Times, The Express Tribune and Dawn, and Zoroastrian and Parsi community web sites including Zoroastrians.net, and the UNESCO Parzor Project.
The applicant submitted an article from Dawn, in March 2016, reporting that the banned Islamic extremist organisation Jamaatul Islam had stated, following a March 2015 attack on churches in Lahore: “Now the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians living in Pakistan have neither converted to Islam nor are they paying Jizya. Under these circumstances, Christians, Hindus, etc, are not at peace, nor are their places of worship safe’. This threatening reference to Zoroastrians is obviously of concern, but as noted above, there is no persuasive evidence that Islamist extremists or others are in fact targeting the Parsi community.
General discrimination and mistreatment
The applicant presented broad claims about his adverse experiences as a Parsi in Pakistan. These covered a number of specific incidents in which he or close associates (neighbours) were subject to threats or violence (see below). In addition, the applicant claimed that there is ‘systematic harassment of minority communities’. During this review, he gave some examples of known or suspected discrimination and harassment, involving himself and/or the community as a whole.
§ The statement of 30 May 2018 claims that, against a background of harassment, it is now difficult for Parsis ‘to practice their religion and celebrate festivals with peace and security’, and that the community is ‘not granted the liberty or opportunity to celebrate their festivals as per the Zoroastrian calendar’. However, at hearing, the applicant also stated that he regularly attended a shrine and engaged in charity work. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was able to practice his faith and celebrate festivals only with difficulty. Rather, it takes this comment as a reference to general security conditions in Karachi.
§ He claimed that he and his community feel under constant pressure from the Muslim majority, including repeated instances of theft and abuse, extortion demands, discriminatory business practices and hostility. By way of example, he said that Parsis have had to take additional security measures around their properties. They are subject to higher utility charges than other locals. And more generally, local people treat Parsis with suspicion and in an unfriendly manner, because of their distinctive accent, clothes and appearance.
§ The applicant recalled one example of discrimination, as the only Parsi working in [his workplace]. He had enrolled for some training, and without explanation a Muslim colleague had been substituted for his position.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that any such discrimination, individually or cumulatively, involved serious harm (persecution) or significant harm, including psychological harm.
§ The applicant’s circumstances and experiences in Pakistan as a whole reinforce this view. He had stable accommodation in Karachi, and a sense of community; he completed secondary and further education; he [did voluntary work] with a local [group] comprised of young men from various communities; and he worked as a[Workplace 1 employee].
§ The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s references to theft, extortion and other criminal activities are a reflection of Karachi’s general security, and law and order, issues. As noted above, it has found no independent material to indicate that Parsis (Zoroastrians) are subject to systematic harassment or discrimination (including being targeted for criminal activity) in Pakistan.
§ The applicant’s conduct – for instance, his delayed application for protection in Australia, and his return visit to Pakistan (even if there were family and emotional reasons for that travel) – adds to the Tribunal’s view that he had not previously experienced persecution or significant harm.
Incidents prior to the applicant’s departure from Pakistan
The applicant claims that there were several incidents that heightened his fears and motivated him to leave Pakistan for a safer future. Some of these involved him directly, while others involved family and friends in the Parsi community, all of which influenced his decision to emigrate.
Threats in late 2007
The applicant’s main claim is that he was subject to threats in late 2007, which may have been extortion demands targeting him as a Parsi. In his primary application, he wrote that he received threatening telephone calls one day. The following day, he was ‘shot at’ twice in front of his home. He then ‘went into hiding and arranged to leave the country as soon as possible’.
Extortion demands and threatening telephone call(s): As noted above, the applicant wrote that [in] December 2007, he received an abusive telephone call that included a death threat.
At both the Department interview and the Tribunal hearing, he indicated that this was an extortion demand. He told the Tribunal that someone called him at home, addressing him by his first name, and demanding PKR (Rupees) [amount][8]. They immediately hung up. The Tribunal sought some context for this call. It wondered why, for instance, they did not identify themselves and why they hung up without telling the applicant how to arrange for payment of the sum. Asked about any background for these demands, the applicant said that a friend had told him that such people make demands for monthly payments, particularly to minority groups. However, he was not sure whether other Parsis in [his compound] had been subject to such threats. He commented that he used to regularly visit a shrine and make food and monetary donations to poor people there. He suspected that shopkeepers in the area had observed him, and presumed that they could extort him.
[8] Approximately $A[amount].
Shots fired at or towards the applicant: The applicant claimed that the following evening, at 9:30 am, two armed men intimidated him and fired shots in the air. He fled immediately.
At hearing, he explained that he had stepped outside the compound, onto the road, at about 9:30 pm the following night ([date] December 2007). Unexpectedly, two men drove past on a motorbike, looked towards him and fired shots in the air. The applicant ran back into the compound. In further discussion, he said that the men did not address him or use his name; he just ran away when he realised what was happening.
Police complaint: The applicant claims to have lodged a police report (First Information Report, FIR) about the incident. He said that the police took no action. He presented an English language text that appears to be the transcript or translation of an FIR lodged at [a] Police Station (there does not appear to be any corresponding copy of the original text), notarised by separate advocates on 6 January 2015 and 16 February 2015. The text refers to an incident [in] December 2007 (the statement mentions that it occurred at 9:30pm, but also appears to indicate that the applicant lodged the complaint at that time). The complaint identifies the applicant as a student. It states that an unknown person called him and made death threats one day. (This appears to be the telephoned threats on [date] December 2007.) The following evening, at 9:30, two men on a motorbike came by while the applicant was standing at the door of his residence. They fired shots at the door, and the applicant fled inside, fearing for his life.
In relation to the reference to him in the FIR as a ‘student’, the applicant explained that the duty officer at the police station warned him that his police colleagues might target him if they learned that he worked as a[Workplace 1 employee]. He went on to state that he had to exercise caution as a [Workplace 1 employee] – for instance, he changed into different clothes after work in order to avoid adverse attention on his way home.
In his primary application, the applicant claimed that the police failed to follow up the FIR, and essentially took no action. At hearing, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s earlier evidence that there had been several other security incidents involving residents of the compound (for instance, a break-in and a street robbery, see below) which residents had not reported, as they did not trust the police. It wondered what had prompted him to approach the police on this occasion. He replied that he had become scared, as he felt that the situation had escalated. Further, he needed a police report for the ‘record’. (The applicant did not clarify what he meant by this.) He noted, as a measure of their lack of interest, that the police did not visit the compound to investigate further, or take any other action.
The applicant’s activities after the threats: Asked about his activities between the alleged shooting [in] December 2007 and his arrival in Australia on 31 January 2008, the applicant said that he continued working at [Workplace 1] and doing his charity work. In response to further questions, he said that he ‘gradually’ changed his patterns, for instance, by visiting the shrine less frequently.
The applicant said that he had applied for an Australian student visa some six or seven months earlier. After this incident, however, he felt scared and was just waiting for the visa to come through.
Tribunal’s consideration: There are several problematic aspects of the applicant’s claim that unknown men targeted him personally in December 2007 (whether as a Parsi, for criminal reasons or some combination of the two); and that he travelled to Australia in response to what he believed to have been death threats. These raise questions about the veracity of the claim, or at the very least, the meaning that the applicant seeks to attach to it.
§ As discussed at hearing, it is puzzling why callers would demand Rs [amount], swear at the applicant and threaten to kill him, without at least giving him some clue as to how he was supposed to pay the money, and to whom. The claimed link between such extortion demands on one evening, and some gunshots fired near the compound the next is also far from clear. The Tribunal has difficulty with the applicant’s claimed confidence that the shots, fired in public (either into the air or towards the compound gate) were aimed at him, not least because there is nothing to indicate how the men could have expected the applicant to be on the street at the time they drove by.
§ The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and his family decided for him to leave Pakistan due to this incident, as implied in his statement of claims. First, he had already applied for an Australian student visa some months earlier. The effort and expense involved with that indicates that he had already decided and been planning to leave Pakistan. Second, even after the alleged shots, the applicant continued to live at the compound, work at [Workplace 1] and attend the shrine where he undertook charity work. The Tribunal notes his comment that he gradually wound back his activities (for instance, visits to the shrine), but it does not consider this a credible response to death threats.
§ The applicant’s claim to have approached the police is somewhat at odds with his earlier evidence that he and fellow Parsis avoided seeking police protection, as they had no faith in them. Moreover, the alleged police report does not identify the men, or clarify whether they fired shots ‘at his residence’ (as the police record indicates) or ‘in the air (as per the applicant’s written statement). There was, in other words, very little for the police to go on. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s responses to these points, namely that he sought police protection only because he feared that the threats were escalating, and that he felt they should at least have examined the compound.
The Tribunal also has concerns about the purported FIR dated [date] December 2007.
§ First, this appears to be the transcript (or the translation into English of a transcript) of an original FIR. Several official and advocates notarised and attested the document in January 2015. There is no copy of the original FIR, and hence no opportunity to confirm either the existence of the original or the accuracy of the transcript/translation.
§ Second, the Tribunal shares the delegate’s concern that the text refers to the applicant as a student. The applicant told both the delegate and the Tribunal that the duty officer wrote that he is a student, in order to minimise the risk of police colleagues causing problems for him (such as demanding bribes). However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that [Workplace 1] staff in Karachi are unable to identify themselves as such to the police; that a police officer recommended to the applicant that he substitute his occupation for ‘student’; or that the applicant agreed to record false information on a sworn statement. In the Tribunal’s view, this raises questions about the circumstances in which the document arose. It suggests that it is not an accurate transcript of a complaint that the applicant made in December 2007.
§ Third, the delegate noted the prevalence of document fraud in Pakistan, and was not satisfied that this document was ‘genuine’. In this case, however, the Tribunal’s concern is twofold: (a) whether there exists an original FIR that the basis for the transcript; and (b) whether the English text accurately reflects the information in any such document. Given country information about fraudulent practices in Pakistan, the Tribunal places very little weight on the wet stamps from an official and an advocate, purporting to authenticate the contents of the document, or the photocopied seal, as confirmation of the document.
The above concerns, taken together, lead the Tribunal to place no weight on the purported transcript of an FIR that was allegedly made on [date] December 2007.
The Tribunal finds many aspects of the claimed threatening telephone call and follow-up shots fired at (or near) the applicant problematic, and does not accept that unidentified men made threatening calls (including extortion demands or death threats) against him in December 2007; that he lived in fear and exercised caution; or that he left Pakistan in response to such threats.
Other incidents
The applicant claimed other incidents, involving relatives and neighbours, influenced his decision to leave Pakistan, and are relevant to an assessment of his prospects on return there.
November 2005 bomb blast
On 15 November 2005, the applicant’s [Relative A] suffered injuries from a bomb [blast]. [Deleted]. A bomb exploded outside the KFC [restaurant] in central Karachi, and [Relative A] suffered [injuries]. He said that religious extremists were believed to have been responsible.
The applicant provided a copy of a medical discharge card stating that his [Relative A] had been treated from 15 to 17 November 2005, for [injuries] to [a part of the body]. A letter from the treating surgeon, dated 28 September 2015, certifies that he treated the applicant’s [Relative A] following a bomb blast.
There was widespread press coverage of the bomb blast. For instance, the applicant provided a copy of a report from CBS News[9]. This report indicates that an ethnic Baluch nationalist group from southwestern Pakistan claimed responsibility for the attack, as part of their campaign for greater rights. The incident resulted in three deaths, 22 injured and widespread property damage, including of three nearby Pakistani banks, and the state-owned Pakistan Petroleum Limited. The article notes that Karachi had been the site of other bombings, some linked with Islamic militants opposed to the government’s pro-Western stance.
[9] CBS News: November 15, 2005: Bomb Blast In Pakistan Kills 3,
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s [Relative A] was injured during this bomb blast, which was part of a series of attacks by militants (Islamic and/or separatists) in downtown Karachi, often directed against government or business premises. The Tribunal does not accept that this incident involved the applicant or affected him directly, or that there was any targeting of his [Relative A] as a Parsi or Zoroastrian. It also notes that the applicant continued his diploma studies through to 2006 and then worked in [Workplace 1], up to his first departure for Australia in early 2008. The Tribunal nonetheless accepts that the attack illustrates the kind of security threats that Karachi residents can face, and that it may have contributed to the applicant’s resolve to migrate from Pakistan.
Robbery and vandalism of the [applicant’s residential compound]
The applicant claimed that there was a robbery at [the applicant’s residential compound] on the first day of Ramadan; he thought this had taken place several years before the attack on him (hence, perhaps in 2004 or 2005). The thieves entered the compound, which was unguarded, and raided an apartment on the third floor. The applicant said that they were after jewellery and cash, but did not succeed. There were bloodstains and socks left behind. The applicant was at home on the second floor at the time, but neither he nor others saw anything. In response to the Tribunal’s questions, he said that to his knowledge there were no reports on the break-in, and no other documentation.
The applicant said that [his compound] was known as a Parsi [area], and an easy target for those trying to intimidate the community. He said that, in response to the attempted robbery, the compound installed security gates. In his protection visa application, the applicant also mentioned that there are now security guards at the compound.
The Tribunal accepts, on the basis that it is plausible, that there was a robbery in the compound in about 2004 or 2005; and that the compound then took security measures, including installing security gates and hiring security guards. The limited available evidence suggests that this was an opportunistic crime, presumably reflecting the fact that the residences were reasonably well-off and also unguarded. The Tribunal appreciates that this may have left residents feeling vulnerable at the time, particularly since the compound is well-known as a Parsi centre. It is not satisfied that the introduction of security measures (such as gates or security guards) was unreasonable, or out of step with comparable residential complexes in Karachi or Pakistan. Nor is it satisfied that the community has faced on ongoing heightened risk of criminal activities (such as break-ins or assaults); or that they have been living in fear of such harm. It is also not satisfied that the applicant and other residents of [a Parsi compound ] live in fear that their security guards will betray them (for instance, because they are Parsis and Zoroastrians).
Street robbery of the applicant’s neighbour
The applicant claimed that on another occasion, thieves robbed a neighbour in broad daylight. He had just purchased US dollars from a money changer, and was about to re-enter the Parsi compound. The thieves had followed him, put a gun to his chest and demanded money. The applicant said that, in line with usual practice, no one reported this to the police.
As presented, this claim involves what appears to be an opportunistic crime against a person who had just purchased foreign money at an exchange booth. It is consistent with country information indicating that crime, including kidnapping, robbery and extortion, is a concern across Pakistan, including in Karachi. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the limited available evidence, that the robber(s) targeted the victim because of his Parsi ethnicity, religion or any other reason set out in s.5J(1)(a).
The applicant’s experiences as a person perceived to have wealth
In his protection visa application, the applicant claimed that Muslims targeted the Parsi community for extortion, in large part because they are well-educated (having often attended English language schools) and perceived to have money. He also claimed (in question 90 on Form 866) that he was ‘targeted […] because [he] worked for [Workplace 1]’.
At hearing and in submissions to the Tribunal, the applicant expressed his concern that [Ms C] had focused too heavily on the issue of wealth, rather than the key issue of religious discrimination. He suggested that this had led the delegate to misconceive his application, and to find that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution as a ‘wealthy person targeted for extortion’ or a returnee from the West.
Despite this, the applicant’s claims at hearing echoed some of these points. Most significantly, he adhered to his claim, discussed above, that a duty officer at the police station recorded his occupation as a ‘student’ because fellow officers might target the applicant if they knew that he worked for [Workplace 1] – implicitly, because they might presume him to be wealthy, and demand bribes. In a similar vein, the applicant commented at hearing that at the end of the working day in [his workplace], he and colleagues used to change clothes in order to avoid adverse attention on the street.
The Tribunal found these claims to be vague. It accepts that the applicant presented as a person with education and a reasonable income, and as a white collar employee. It also accepts that, given Karachi’s security environment, he had to exercise the same precautions as other residents, such as being aware of his surroundings when out and about. However, for the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept that in 2007 the applicant had to conceal his occupation as a [Workplace 1] employee at the police station for fear of being subject to demands for bribes, or of being denied protection. Nor does the Tribunal accept that he had to take additional steps – such as changing clothes or his appearance – to avoid being targeted by criminals, Islamic extremists or others.
Departure from Pakistan
The applicant claimed to have left Pakistan in January 2008 ‘due to fear for his own safety’. He made the decision with his family, implicitly, after the threats in December 2007. However, as discussed at hearing, he had already lodged a student visa application for Australia. The Tribunal has rejected above the applicant’s claim that he was subject to threats in December 2007, and does not accept that he left Pakistan in response to these or similar incidents, or fearing for his immediate safety. The Tribunal does accept, however, that the applicant and his family harbour general concerns about the prospects for, and safety and future prospects of, the Parsi community in Karachi; and that these concerns influenced his decision to travel abroad.
Recent developments

The applicant claims that two incidents in early 2015 – [in] January and [in] February – reinforced his fears of returning to Pakistan. On both occasions, three men approached his former home in [the Parsi compound] and demanded to know his whereabouts. According to the statement on his protection visa application, they asked his aunt for details of his residential address and his income. The applicant’s family has no insights as to who these people are, or the reason for their interest.
The applicant confirmed this claim at hearing. He said that three men came to the compound asking about his location and his income, adding that he did not know why they were seeking these details. He referred only to the ‘targeting of minorities’, rather than extortion demands. He speculated that the visitors might have got information about him from his last visit to Pakistan in 2011 (implying that his return to Pakistan or his residency in Australia might have piqued their interest).
The applicant also presented several documents addressing this claim. An email from his aunt, dated 11 March 2015, states in general terms that ‘[b]oys were after him making threatening calls and demanding ransom money’. The applicant’s uncle (this appears to be the aunt’s husband) wrote that ‘two unidentified gunmen […] came to our residence […] and asked […] about his current residence’. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s relatives have an interest in the outcome of this application, and therefore places little weight on these statements as independent corroboration of this claim.
The Tribunal considers that this claim lacks credibility. First, there is uncertainty as to whether the men were merely enquiring about the applicant’s location and income, or whether they were actually demanding money. Second, the timing of the alleged approaches - almost seven years after the applicant’s first departure from Pakistan, four years after his last visit there, and just over a month before he lodged his protection visa application – adds to the Tribunal’s disquiet. Third, the visitors’ apparent failure to follow up, over more than three years, raises further questions about the veracity of this claim.
In light of these concerns, the Tribunal does not accept that several men came asking about the applicant in January/February 2015, in a menacing way (or signalling their intention to demand extortion money); that this added to the applicant’s fears; and that this played a key role in his decision to seek protection.
Summary of findings
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Parsi and of the Zoroastrian faith. It finds that the applicant had mainly positive experiences in Pakistan, including in his education, employment, social life and travel opportunities. It accepts that he may have experienced some petty discrimination, based on his appearance, accent or perceived difference, but it does not accept this involved hostility, or mistreatment that amounted to serious harm (persecution) or significant harm. It accepts that he was concerned about general crime problems in Karachi, and security incidents involving Islamic or other extremists. It also accepts that there were some events, such as his [Relative A]’s injuries from a downtown bomb blast in 2015, an armed robbery near the compound, and a break-in, that added to his concerns.
However, the Tribunal does not accept that unidentified men targeted the applicant in 2007, seeking extortion money or threatening to kill him; or that shopkeepers or other people singled him out as a result of his charity work; or that he left Pakistan in response to such threats. It also does not accept that there have been any subsequent threats or menacing enquiries about him in 2015.
ASSESSMENT: REFUGEE CRITERION
The Tribunal now assesses whether, in light of the above findings of fact, and having regard also to any other relevant factors – in particular, country information relating to Parsis and other religious minorities in Pakistan, as well as the applicant’s future conduct – there is a real chance of him experiencing serious harm amounting to persecution if he returns to Pakistan, for reason of his race, religion or for any similar reason enumerated in s.5J(1).
The Tribunal has found above that the applicant has suffered some minor discrimination in the past; and that he was concerned about Karachi’s general security conditions, particularly the rise of Islamist and other extremists. It accepts that there were some incidents involving relatives and neighbours that heightened these general concerns. However, the Tribunal does not accept that he was personally targeted, as a Parsi or for any other reason (including as a [Workplace 1], or a person perceived as being wealthy).
As discussed at hearing, the Tribunal has found no information to indicate Parsis are subject to systematic harassment or discrimination in Pakistan. The applicant claimed that community members are reluctant to report crimes, in part because the community is so small and feels vulnerable. However, the Tribunal considers that the available reports (including the articles that the applicant presented) do identify the community’s concerns about security, and that the Parsi diaspora would also be in a position to highlight any instances of persecutory or significant harm.
The Tribunal takes into account country information about the dwindling size of the Parsi community, which is obviously relevant to any assessment of the applicant’s prospects if he returns to Pakistan. Reports, including articles submitted by the applicant, indicate that young Pakistani Parsis, such as the applicant’s relatives in Australia and North America, are motivated to leave Pakistan. Comments in a Parsi blog in 2016[10] reflect the mixed factors behind this population movement: ‘With the emigration of its youth to safer and more prosperous countries’, the Parsi population is declining. ‘In Pakistan, violence against religious minorities has also increased lately and although the Parsis have not yet been targeted by the extremists owing to their low profile, it doesn’t stop them from feeling vulnerable. “There is no security, the laws and not implemented, taxes are not paid”, says Sohrab Giara, administrator of the Parsi colony of Avari where most of the Parsis live.’
[10] Parsi Khabar, June 24, 2016: The Eternal Flame of the Zoroastrians is Dying Out in Pakistan, >
As discussed at hearing, the departure of Parsis from Pakistan has also been due to cultural and demographic factors, such as late family creation, a lower birth rate than the national average, intermarriage practices and an aging population.
The Tribunal has taken into account country information about living and security conditions in Pakistan; concerns about the treatment of religious minorities generally; and other information that the Parsi community itself has not been subject to systematic targeting. Taking into account the applicant’s past experiences and circumstances, it is not satisfied that he faces a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution, as a member of the Parsi community. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant will have to modify his behaviour – such as taking steps to hide his origins; or altering his religious beliefs or practices, or charitable activities – so as to avoid a real chance of persecution.
The applicant has at various times alluded to additional risk factors, such as his Western attire and his spoken accent (attributable in part to his Parsi identity); his past employment as a [Workplace 1 employee]; his time abroad; and his perceived wealth (although he was concerned that [Ms C] had highlighted this factor at the expense of his main protection claim). The Tribunal is not satisfied that these factors, even considered cumulatively, give rise to a real chance of the applicant being subject to persecutory harm.
Relevantly, the applicant is well-educated, has previously worked in [Workplace 1] in Karachi and engaged in various community and charity activities. Looking ahead to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he faces a real chance of discrimination, as a Parsi or Zoroastrian, such that he will be unable to find work (and thereby suffer a denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, or serious harm of a similar kind), or practice his faith, or engage in other activities.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is apprehensive about returning to Karachi, with concerns about general security and living conditions there. The applicant claimed that members of the Parsi community feel unable to approach the police, citing several instances where neighbours had failed to report crimes. Furthermore, country information indicates that police capacity is limited by lack of resources, poor training, insufficient and outmoded equipment, and competing pressures; and there is a widespread perception of police corruption. Despite these limitations, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Karachi police will selectively deny protection to the applicant (or members of his community), for any of the reasons set out in s.5J(1).
It has considered his claims and evidence, individually and cumulatively. It is not satisfied that he faces a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution if he returns to Karachi, for reason of his Parsi ethnicity, Zoroastrian faith or any other reason set out in s.5J(1).
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons enumerated in s.5J(1), now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Pakistan.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
ASSESSMENT: COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION
The Tribunal has considered whether on the evidence before it, there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Pakistan.
The Tribunal takes into account the above findings of fact; its view of the applicant’s future conduct; and country information about the situation for Parsis and Zoroastrians in Pakistan, including as members of one of the country’s religious minorities. It recognises that the applicant is concerned about his future prospects on his return to Pakistan, particularly arising from security conditions in Karachi. The Tribunal is of the view that the general law and order problems - including crime and terrorism (or related) incidents – do not give rise to a real risk of significant harm. Furthermore, the population of Pakistan generally faces these risks, so it would in any event be taken not to be a ‘real risk’ of significant harm for the purposes of assessing the applicant’s eligibility for complementary protection: s.36(2B)(c).
On the basis of his past experiences, his conduct in Pakistan and Australia, and country information about the Parsi community and conditions in Pakistan, the Tribunal concludes that there is no real risk that the applicant will be subjected to any form of harm which would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on him, such as to meet the definition of torture; or to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment. It is also not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty. In other words, the Tribunal finds no other grounds that suggest he will be subject to significant harm, for any reason, if he returns to Pakistan.
Accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa).
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 s.36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
James Silva
Member

ATTACHMENT 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, he or she 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.
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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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 relevant country information assessments 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.
ATTACHMENT B - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)    there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)    conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)    the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)    significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)    significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)    the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)    any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)    the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)    the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)    the person can access the protection; and
(b)    the protection is durable; and
(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2018] AATA 4275

7 September 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction