1513982 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, a Shi’ite Muslim from Pakistan, claimed to fear harm due to a protracted property dispute with his cousins. He alleged that this dispute had escalated to violence, resulting in his physical injury, and that he had subsequently been threatened in a foreign country by individuals he believed were sent by his cousins. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant qualified for a protection visa under either the refugee or complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by the Refugees Convention. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess the applicant's credibility as a witness, given inconsistencies in his evidence. The applicant’s claims included allegations of police corruption and prejudice against him due to his Shi’ite Muslim faith, which he feared would prevent him from receiving protection in Pakistan.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s claims regarding the property dispute and subsequent threats were not sufficiently substantiated to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s evidence was inconsistent and that he had not demonstrated that he would be unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of Pakistan. Specifically, the Tribunal observed that the Pakistani state had previously protected the applicant’s mother in relation to the land dispute, and the applicant had not provided evidence to suggest this protection would not be available to him. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no basis for the applicant to satisfy the criteria for complementary protection. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.