1513751 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant him a Protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared harm upon return to Pakistan due to his involvement with a loan shark, who was allegedly a member of the militant organisation Sipah-e-Sahaba, and also due to his adoption of "western ways and thoughts" and his accustomed freedom of speech and life in Australia. The applicant's representative indicated that the claim was being pursued under the complementary protection criteria, not the refugee criteria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically under the complementary protection provisions, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Pakistan, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved considering the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and assessing the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and policy guidelines.

The court affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It noted that the applicant was not seeking to satisfy the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act. The court's reasoning focused on the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. While the applicant's claims regarding the loan shark and his adaptation to western ways were noted, the decision ultimately found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa. The court also noted that there was no suggestion the applicant satisfied s.36(2) of the Act by being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a Protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.