1515197 (Refugee)

1515197 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 5970 (3 December 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1515197
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan
MEMBER:Linda Symons
DATE:3 December 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 03 December 2018 at 8:50am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – victims of random criminal acts – applicant’s brother’s dispute with leaders of religious school – killing of four relatives – imputed political opinion – fear of attacks by extremists – credibility – delay in leaving after visas granted – voluntary travel to home country – delay in applying for protection – inconsistent evidence – late, new claims – fear not well founded – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 424AA
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The first named applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, first arrived in Australia [in] February 2011 as the holder of a subclass 457 Business visa that was valid until 27 August 2014. He departed Australia [in] February 2012 and returned to Australia [in] April 2012. He departed Australia again [in] April 2013 and returned [in] May 2013. On 6 May 2014, he was granted a Bridging visa in association with his application for Protection visas.
The second named applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, is the wife of the first named applicant. She arrived in Australia [in] March 2014 as the holder of a subclass 457 Business visa. On 6 May 2014, she was granted a Bridging visa in association with her application for Protection visas.
The third named applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, is the eldest son of the first and second named applicants. He arrived in Australia [in] December 2013 as the holder of a subclass 457 Business visa. On 6 May 2014, he was granted a Bridging visa in association with his application for Protection visas.
The fourth named applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, is the second son of the first and second named applicants. He arrived in Australia [in] March 2014 as the holder of a subclass 457 Business visa. On 6 May 2014, he was granted a Bridging visa in association with his application for Protection visas.
The fifth named applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, is the third son of the first and second named applicants. He arrived in Australia [in] December 2013 as the holder of a subclass 457 Business visa. On 6 May 2014, he was granted a Bridging visa in association with his application for Protection visas.
The applicants applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for Protection visas on 30 April 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas on 13 October 2015. On 9 November 2015, they applied to the Tribunal for a review of those decisions.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 8 August 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages. The hearing was adjourned to 6 September 2018.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 6 September 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
The issues that arise on review are whether the applicants are owed Australia’s protection under the Refugee Convention or the complementary protection criterion.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
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.
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.
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’).
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of 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.
First named applicant’s claims
The first named applicant’s claims in his application for Protection visas are summarised as follows:
·He was born on [date] at Lahore in Pakistan. He is a citizen of Pakistan. He is an Urdu Punjabi and a Sunni Muslim.
·He is married and has three sons. He owns a house in his home town of Gujranwala and rented a house in Lahore where he lived and worked for around 30 years. His family lived between both towns.
·He arrived in Australia [in] February 2011 as the holder of a subclass 457 visa to manage a [business] at [Location]. He has been working in Australia for more than 3 years. Pakistanis will perceive him to be rich and he will be targeted for kidnapping by gangs or Taliban extremists for the purpose of extorting ransom money if he returns to Pakistan.
·In 2009, he was travelling from Gujranwala to Lahore by bus. Armed men stopped the bus and robbed them. They took the women’s jewellery, their wallets, telephones, watches and everything. One man tried to protest and was shot and killed. As he travels in the evening, because of his work commitments, he is at greater risk of attack.
·His children are of school age and the current security conditions make it unsafe to attend school. In 2012, his son [was] travelling to [University] by van when the van was stopped by an armed gang who demanded money, mobile telephones et cetera. Two passengers who tried to argue with them were taken away.
·Islamist extremists target those who attend schools because they want to suppress any non-Islamic academic studies. He knows of countless stories of suicide attacks on schools.
·It is especially unsafe for his wife in Pakistan. Leaving the house presents a risk of attack by religious extremists and gangs if she is not in his company or the company of another adult male. Around 3 years ago, his sister [Ms A] was kidnapped by a gang when travelling alone to the market. She was taken to a nearby field and they stole everything from her.
·In Australia, his wife would have the opportunity to study English, further her education and work if she so desires. She could also obtain a driver’s license and move freely and unaccompanied from place to place without fear of being stopped by religious extremists or gangs.
·His brother, [Mr B], [worked at] a school [in] [Location] which is approximately [distance] from Lahore. As a result of a civil dispute between his school and a neighbouring school, he and his son, [Mr C], were arrested and gaoled for around 3 years.
·In August 2008, he, his brother’s brother-in-law, [Mr D], and his brother’s eldest son, [Mr E], visited his brother’s family whilst he was in gaol. His brother’s wife, [Ms F], and daughter and son, were home. During the night, three men entered the house and stabbed his niece, [Ms G] and his sister-in-law, [Ms F]. His niece died on the way to hospital and his sister-in-law died at the hospital. He, [Mr E] and [Mr D] witnessed the attack. They believe that the attack on the family was made because of the civil dispute.
·The Police and Court investigated the matter over about the next year and a half. They were called to give witness statements at least ten times over that period. Whenever they attended Court, threats were made against them by [Mr H], who is the brother-in-law of the accused. He stated that he was well connected with the government authorities, Police, Judges and Prison authorities so he could make trouble for them if they did not stop giving evidence.
·[Mr E] was the main complainant against the accused and feared for his life. He made arrangements to depart Pakistan and seek asylum in [Country 1] after the investigation was finalised. He was granted a Protection visa by the [Country 1] government.
·The Court case was dropped eventually. They believe this was because of the accused’s connections with the authorities.
·Around 2 years later, [Mr D]’s wife and [age] year-old son were killed while he was at work. There was no apparent motive for the attack so they suspect that [Mr D]’s family was targeted as revenge for him having provided a witness statement.
·After [Mr D]’s family was attacked, they felt afraid for their lives. His wife limited her movements by avoiding the market where possible. If she needed to leave the house she covered her face so that she could not be recognised. He travelled to Australia in 2011 for work and left his wife in the care of his sons with the intention of bringing them to Australia once he was settled and financially able to do so. They had returned to Gujranwala because they thought it would be safer there.
·He returned to Pakistan in 2012 to renew his passport and in 2013 to organise his family’s visa documents. When he returned, he did so cautiously, limiting his movements to essential outings and avoided making contact with people outside of his direct family network.
·Around 6 months ago, his wife and sons heard noises on the roof of their home in the middle of the night. Neighbours later told them that they had, on several occasions, seen a few men on the roof hanging around suspiciously. He feared the men were taking advantage of his absence to make a revenge attack on his family. His neighbours formed a watch committee to patrol the neighbourhood. This deterred the men from returning until he could take his family out of Pakistan.
·He fears that he and his family will be targeted and harmed by outlaws, gangs and extremist groups including the Taliban and Lashke Jangui.
·They tried to seek justice for the murder of their family members but the Pakistani system failed them and left them vulnerable to further attack. The corruption in Pakistan makes it impossible for ordinary people to seek justice and protection. The authorities are unable to protect themselves because of the current security situation and do not have power to offer protection to ordinary Pakistani citizens.
·The security issues affect the whole country so it is not safe to travel or relocate to other areas. It would be difficult for them to relocate to another area because they would be without family support. It is impossible to obtain housing and employment without a family network.
On 30 April 2014, the applicants’ former migration agent lodged written submissions dated 10 April 2014 with the Department. In his submissions, he made the following new claims:
·The first named applicant fears harm for reason of his imputed political opinion (pro-Western/ anti-Taliban/anti-LeJ) as a result of him returning to Pakistan after his prolonged residence in a Western country and his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’ and/or ‘witnesses in Pakistani Court proceedings’.
The first named applicant attended an interview with the Department on 3 February 2015. He was assisted by an Urdu interpreter. His former migration agent was present at the interview. During the interview, he reiterated and expanded on his written claims. The delegate found that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has any protection obligations and his application for a Protection visas was refused on 13 October 2015.
During the first hearing on 8 August 2018, the first named applicant stated that he did not wish to proceed with any claims other than his claims in relation to “the killings”.
Second named applicant’s claims
The second named applicant lodged a Form 866C application form indicating that she is an applicant who wishes to submit her own claims for protection. In response to questions about her claims in the application form she indicated ‘Refer to Statement of Claims’. However, she did not lodge her own Statements of Claims and relied on the Statement of Claims lodged by the first named applicant.
On 30 April 2014, the applicants’ former migration agent lodged written submissions dated 10 April 2014 with the Department. In his submissions, he made the following new claims:
·The second named applicant fears harm for reason of her membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’ and/or ‘women in Pakistan’.
The second named applicant attended an interview with the Department on 3 February 2015. She was assisted by an Urdu interpreter. Her former migration agent was present at the interview. During the interview, she made the following new claims:
·She had a heightened fear of harm after the second murder.
·She kept hoping that things would improve but different men followed her and her sons all the time.
·On three occasions neighbours saw men on their roof.
·She had to wear a hijab when she went out and she restricted her movements.
·She would like to study English in Australia and it would be easier to do so because her fears restrained her from leaving her house in Pakistan.
·There is hostility towards women driving in Pakistan.
The delegate found that she is not a person in respect of whom Australia has any protection obligations and her application for a Protection visa was refused on 13 October 2015.
Third named applicant’s claims
The third named applicant lodged a Form 866C application form indicating that he is an applicant who wishes to submit his own claims for protection. In response to questions about his claims in the application form he indicated ‘Refer to Statement of Claims’. However, he did not lodge his own Statements of Claims and relied on the Statement of Claims lodged by the first named applicant.
On 30 April 2014, the applicants’ former migration agent lodged written submissions dated 10 April 2014 with the Department. In his submissions, he made the following new claims:
·The third named applicant fears harm for reason of his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’ and/or ‘children in Pakistan’.
The third named applicant attended an interview with the Department on 3 February 2015. He was assisted by an Urdu interpreter. His former migration agent was present at the interview. During the interview, he made the following new claims:
·He feared the men who followed the family prior to him leaving Pakistan. The men wore beards and the first named applicant told him they were suspicious and possibly Taliban.
·People in Pakistan will know that he has been overseas as he now speaks English better than most Pakistanis and with a different accent.
The delegate found that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has any protection obligations and his application for a Protection visa was refused on 13 October 2015.
Fourth named applicant
The fourth named applicant lodged a Form 866C application form indicating that he is an applicant who wishes to submit his own claims for protection. In response to questions about his claims in the application form he indicated ‘Refer to Statement of Claims’. However, he did not lodge his own Statements of Claims and relied on the Statement of Claims lodged by the first named applicant.
On 30 April 2014, the applicants’ former migration agent lodged written submissions dated 10 April 2014 with the Department. In his submissions, he made the following new claims:
·The fourth named applicant fears harm for reason of his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’ and/or ‘children in Pakistan’.
The fourth named applicant attended an interview with the Department on 3 February 2015. He was assisted by an Urdu interpreter. His former migration agent was present at the interview. During the interview, he made the following new claims:
·He fears that if he returns to Pakistan after working in Australia he will be kidnapped.
·He failed Year [number] in Pakistan and would have to repeat year [number] in school in Pakistan. He can access TAFE in Australia and do his HSC there to obtain entry to university.
·He is working on a casual basis as [an Occupation 1]. He would like to continue to do this work but in Pakistan such work is not [possible].
The delegate found that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has any protection obligations and his application for a Protection visa was refused on 13 October 2015.
Fifth named applicant
The fifth named applicant lodged a Form 866C application form indicating that he is an applicant who wishes to submit his own claims for protection. In response to questions about his claims in the application form he indicated ‘Refer to Statement of Claims’. However, he did not lodge his own Statements of Claims and relied on the Statement of Claims lodged by the first named applicant.
On 30 April 2014, the applicants’ former migration agent lodged written submissions dated 10 April 2014 with the Department. In his submissions, he made the following new claims:
·The fifth named applicant fears harm for reason of his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’ and/or ‘children in Pakistan’.

The fifth named applicant attended an interview with the Department on 3 February 2015. He was assisted by an Urdu interpreter. His former migration agent was present at the interview. During the interview, he made the following new claims:
·He noticed people following him because the first named applicant gave evidence in a Court case.
·After the two murder incidents he fears that his family will be next. Aggrieved parties are still angry and want revenge.
·He is in Year [number] and wants to study [subject]. He attended [a type of] school in Pakistan and there were security arrangements at the school. There have been attacks on schools in Pakistan and all schools in Pakistan are not safe for students.
The delegate found that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has any protection obligations and his application for a Protection visa was refused on 13 October 2015.
The applicants provided to the Department copies of the bio data pages of their Pakistan passports, Certificate of children less than 18 years, a First Information Report (FIR) dated [August] 2008, an FIR dated [December] 2010, a newspaper article without an English translation and a letter dated [February] 2014 from the Ministry for [Immigration] in [Country 1] indicating that [Mr E] had been granted ‘subsidiary protection’ in [Country 1] [in] January 2011.
The applicants subsequently instructed a new migration agent. They have filed with the Tribunal copies of the Department’s Decision Record dated 13 October 2015, an Identity Card for [Mr I], an Identity Card for [Ms J], a Memo dated [July] 2018 from [Mr K], a FIR dated [August] 2008, a FIR dated [December] 2010, a Sale Deed, a Register of Land Ownership, a letter dated [August] 2016 from the Assistant Registrar of the Lahore High Court, an English translation of a newspaper article in [Newspaper] dated [August] 2008, a Verifier Form, documents issued by the [Country 1] government to [Mr E], documents relating to the third named applicant’s employment and education in Australia, documents relating to the fourth named applicant’s employment in Australia, documents relating to the fifth named applicant’s employment and education in Australia, a judgment by Additional Sessions Judge [L] dated [February] 2011, a Declaration by [Ms A], an Identity Card for [Ms M], a Declaration by [Mr N], an Identity Card for [Mr N], a Declaration by [Mr O], a Declaration by [Mr P], a Statement by [Mr Q], a letter dated [July] 2016 from the first named applicant to the Lahore High Court, the first named applicant’s statement of claims and a letter from the Department to the first named applicant in relation to the grant of a subclass 457 visa in 2010.
Country of reference/Receiving country
The applicants claim to be citizens of Pakistan and have provided copies of their Pakistani passports to the Department and the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that they are citizens of Pakistan. The Tribunal finds that Pakistan is the country of reference for the purpose of assessing their claims for protection under the Refugees Convention and the receiving country for the purpose of assessing their claims for protection under the complementary protection criteria.

Third country protection

The Tribunal finds that the applicants are outside their country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that they have a right to enter and reside in any country other than their country of nationality.
Membership of the same family unit
The Tribunal finds that the second named applicant is the spouse of the first named applicant and the third, fourth and fifth named applicants are the dependent children of the first named applicant. The Tribunal finds that they are members of the same family unit as the first named applicant.
Assessment of claims
The first named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his application for Protection visas including his Statement of Claims was prepared by his former migration agent based on his instructions which were true and correct. He stated that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. He stated that he is also satisfied that the visa applications prepared on behalf of the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants are also accurate and complete.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that in 2009 he was travelling from Gujranwala to Lahore by bus. He claimed that armed men stopped the bus and robbed them taking women’s jewellery, their wallets, telephones, watches and everything. He claimed that one man tried to protest and was shot and killed. He claimed that, as he travels in the evening because of his work commitments, he is at greater risk of attack. The Tribunal discussed these claims with him. He stated that the thieves who stopped the bus were criminals trying to make money. He stated that one man who protested was shot and injured. He stated that the injured man was taken to hospital and this incident was reported to the Police.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that in 2012 the third named applicant was travelling to [University] by van when the van was stopped by an armed gang who demanded money, mobile telephones et cetera. He claimed that two passengers who tried to argue with them were taken away. The Tribunal discussed these claims with him. He stated that the thieves were criminals trying to make money. He stated that this incident was also reported to the Police.
The second named applicant gave evidence that when the third named applicant was travelling in a van some people took the van, stole money from him and other people and beat them.
The third named applicant gave evidence that he and his friends were returning from University on one occasion when two men stopped the van they were travelling in. He stated that the men had a gun and ordered the driver to drive off the road. He stated that there were a lot of people in the van and they started shouting. He stated that the two men wanted to steal money and mobile telephones but were frightened away. He stated that they ran away without stealing anything.
The Tribunal prefers the evidence given by the third named applicant as he was present during the incident and is in the best position to give an accurate account of what occurred. The Tribunal is of the view that the first and second named applicants have embellished their accounts of this incident and does not accept their evidence in relation to the details of the incident. The evidence of the applicants indicate that these two incidents were random acts of criminality and that the criminals were not targeting either the first or third named applicants.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that around 3 years ago his sister [Ms A] was kidnapped by a gang when travelling alone to the market. He claimed that she was taken to a nearby field and they stole everything from her. The Tribunal discussed these claims with him. He stated that his sister travelled to the city by rickshaw to do some shopping. He stated that she shared the rickshaw with two other people who put something on her nose that made her unconscious. He stated that whilst she was unconscious they stole all her jewellery. He stated that he reported the theft to the Police. He stated that the Police arrested some people during the investigation but subsequently released them.
The first named applicant’s account of this incident to the Tribunal is substantially different to what he claimed in his visa application. The Tribunal places more weight on his oral testimony and is of the view that the claims in his visa application that his sister was kidnapped by a gang, taken to a field and robbed have been fabricated. His evidence indicates that this was a random act of criminality. The Tribunal is of the view that his sister was unfortunate to share a rickshaw with some unscrupulous passenger, whilst wearing jewellery, and was the victim of their criminal behaviour. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he was the intended target or that this act of criminality was aimed at him.
The first named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that he only wishes to proceed with his claims in relation to the murders and does not wish to proceed with the above claims. However, the other applicants are relying on the above claims. The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicants the fact that these were random acts of criminality and that the criminals were not targeting the first or third named applicants. The Tribunal also discussed with them country information which indicates that there is generalised violence in Pakistan and noted that this affects everyone in Pakistan and not just the applicants.
The first named applicant agreed. He stated that the criminals stole money from him and other passengers and stole jewellery from women. He stated that he is not claiming that he was being targeted. He stated that they took the boy who was shot to hospital and reported the incident to the Police. He stated that the criminals knew the Police were not going to help them. The third named applicant also agreed that these were random acts of criminality and that he was not being targeted. The other applicants declined to respond. In view of the above, the Tribunal finds that none of the applicants were the intended targets of these random acts of criminality and that these incidents were part of the generalised crime and violence in Pakistan.
During the first hearing on 8 August 2018, the second named applicant made new claims that the first and third named applicants were travelling on a motor cycle when they were shot at and ran away to save their lives. She stated that they were shot at because of the Court case that the first named applicant was involved in. These claims were not made by either the first named applicant or the third named applicant despite having many opportunities to do so. The Tribunal put this information to the applicants, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that the failure of both the first and third named applicants to mention this incident raised concerns in relation to the credibility of this claim.
The first named applicant responded that he thought that what he had said previously was enough. He stated that these kinds of incidents happen. The third named applicant responded that this incident did occur but not to them. He stated that they were on the road at that time and ran into an alley. He stated that they have no other details, nothing they could shape into a claim and that is why it was not mentioned. The other applicants declined to respond. The Tribunal prefers the evidence given by the first and third named applicants to that given by the second named applicant. In view of their evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that they were shot at whilst on a motor cycle because of the first named applicant’s involvement in the Court case. The Tribunal accepts that they may have been in the vicinity when a gun was fired but does not accept that either of them were the intended target of the gunshot.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that his brother, [Mr B], [worked at] a school [in] [Location]. He claimed that, as a result of a civil dispute between his school and a neighbouring school, he and his son, [Mr C], were arrested and imprisoned for around 3 years. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 13 October 2015. It indicates that during his interview with the Department on 3 February 2015 he claimed that the civil dispute resulted in his brother [Mr B] and his son [Mr C] being imprisoned sometime between 2005 and 2008 for the theft of electricity and they were released in about 2010 without conviction.
The Tribunal discussed these claims with the first named applicant. He stated that his brother [Mr B] started a school in 1982 for girls and boys. He stated that around 2006 a madrassa was built near the school by Islamic fundamentalists. He stated that they wanted to close down his brother’s school and made threats to do so. He stated that they made a false claim that his brother was stealing electricity and he and his son [Mr C] were taken into custody and denied bail. He stated that they were involved in Court proceedings for 3 to 3 ½ years and were released [in] November 2009. He stated that the complainants had connections to “big people” and the Judge did whatever they wanted.
The applicants have filed with the Tribunal a judgment by Additional Sessions Judge [L] dated [February] 2011 (the judgment). This judgment refers to evidence given in the trial in relation to the murder of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece. It refers to the first named applicant’s brother [Mr B] and his son [Mr C] assaulting and causing actual bodily harm to [Mr ZR] and [Mr YR], two of the five accused in the murder trial, and being convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
The Tribunal finds the first named applicant’s evidence in relation to these claims to be unconvincing. The Tribunal also finds it implausible that the first named applicant’s brother [Mr B] and his son [Mr C] would have been denied bail and remanded in custody for several years in relation to a relatively minor offence such as stealing electricity. The Tribunal is of the view that it is more likely that they were charged, convicted and sentenced to a 4 year term of imprisonment in relation to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Tribunal accepts that there was an ongoing dispute between [Mr B] and the owners of the madrassa. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr B] and his son [Mr C] were denied bail, remanded in custody and imprisoned only in relation to charges of stealing electricity.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that in August 2008 he, his brother’s brother-in-law, [Mr D], and his brother’s eldest son, [Mr E], visited his brother’s family whilst he was in gaol. He claimed that his brother’s wife, [Ms F], and daughter and son, were home. He claimed that during the night three men entered the house and stabbed his niece, [Ms G] and his sister-in-law, [Ms F]. He claimed that his niece died on the way to hospital and his sister-in-law died at the hospital. He claimed that he, [Mr E] and [Mr D] witnessed the attack. He claimed that they believe that the attack on the family was made because of the civil dispute. He claimed that the Police and the Court investigated the matter over about the next year and a half. He claimed that they were called to give witness statements at least ten times over that period. He claimed that whenever they attended Court, threats were made against them by [Mr H], who is the brother-in-law of the accused. He claimed that he stated that he was well connected with the government authorities, Police, Judges and Prison authorities so he could make trouble for them if they did not stop giving evidence. He claimed that [Mr E] was the main complainant against the accused and feared for his life. He claimed that the Court case was dropped eventually. He claimed that they believe this was because of the accused’s connections with the authorities.
The Tribunal discussed these claims with the first named applicant. There were a number of inconsistencies between his evidence to the Tribunal and his evidence to the Department and his written claims. There were also inconsistencies between his evidence and the supporting documents that he provided. For instance, there were inconsistencies in his evidence in relation to how many people were involved in the murders, where the murders took place and what he witnessed. In his visa application, he claimed that three men stabbed his sister-in-law and niece. In his evidence to the Tribunal, he stated that three to four men were involved in the murders.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that during the night three men entered the house and stabbed his sister-in-law and his niece. The Department’s Decision Record (which he filed with the Tribunal) indicates that during his interview with the Department he stated that his sister-in-law and his niece were sleeping outside in the courtyard and presumably were killed in the courtyard. In his evidence to the Tribunal he stated that his sister-in-law and niece were sleeping in the living room and he saw the killers dragging them to the court yard.
During his interview with the Department, the first named applicant stated that he heard screaming at around 1.30am and when he went out he saw three unknown men disappearing over the garden wall. In his evidence to the Tribunal, he initially stated that he, [Mr E] and [Mr D] were asleep in a room and woke up to the sound of noise. He stated that when they went outside he saw three to four men beating his sister-in-law and his niece. He then stated that the men were dragging them. He later stated that when they went outside his niece was lying on the ground in the courtyard and was already dead. He stated that he saw two men holding his sister-in-law and one of them stabbing her with a knife.
The Tribunal asked the first named applicant whether he tried to stop the men from hurting his sister-in-law. He responded that they shouted at them and when they went outside the men saw them and ran away. He stated that they called an ambulance. He stated that his niece was killed at the scene and his sister-in-law died on the way to the hospital. He stated that he did not know the identity of the attackers but when he subsequently saw them he recognized them because the murders happened in front of him. He stated that [Mr E] and [Mr D] did not know the identity of the men either.
The applicants have filed with the Department a FIR in relation to a complaint made by the first named applicant’s nephew [Mr E]. It indicates that the incident took place on [a day in] August 2008 at 1.20am and the report was made to the Police on [the same day in] August 2008 at 5.30am. In his complaint [Mr E] stated that he, [Mr D] and the first named applicant slept in one room on the night of [August] 2008 and his mother and other family members slept in the courtyard. He stated that at about 1.30am he heard a noise and when he, [Mr D] and the first named applicant came out of the room they saw that his sister had been taken forcibly into a room by five men. He identified three of them as [Mr ZR], [Mr YR] and [Mr XR], sons of [Mr WR], and provided their address. He stated that they were with two unknown men who were armed with daggers and “making hues and cries.”
In the FIR, [Mr E] stated that the lights in the courtyard and room were on. He stated that they saw [Mr YR] stab his sister with a dagger to different parts of her body and she fell to the ground smeared in blood. He stated that his mother ran outside but was encircled at the gate and [Mr ZR] and [Mr XR] used their daggers to inflict blows on his mother to different parts of her body. He stated that his mother was smeared in blood and fell outside the gate. He stated that the attackers waved their daggers and fled. He stated that he, [Mr D] and the first named applicant “shifting” his sister and mother to the hospital. He stated that his sister died on the way to the hospital and his mother died during treatment at the hospital. He stated that the attackers committed the murders on the “abetment” of [Mr H]. He stated that the motive for the attack was their previous litigation against [Mr ZR].
[Mr E]’s account of the incident is significantly different to the accounts given by the first named applicant. Firstly, he stated that there were five attackers and not three or, alternatively, four as claimed by the first named applicant. Secondly, he identified three of the attackers and provided details of their names, their father’s name and their address. This is not consistent with the first named applicant’s evidence that [Mr E], [Mr D] and he did not know the identity of the attackers. Thirdly, his account of the sequence of events is different from the accounts given by the first named applicant. Fourthly, he stated that his sister died on the way to the hospital and his mother died at the hospital. This is not consistent with the first named applicant’s evidence that his niece died at the scene of the attack and his sister-in-law died on the way to the hospital. Fifthly, he makes no mention of calling an ambulance. It is not clear whether the use of the word “shifting” means that he transported his sister and mother to the hospital.

These inconsistencies between [Mr E]’s account of the incident and the various accounts given by the first named applicant raise concerns in relation to the first named applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The judgment indicates that there were five defendants in the proceedings including the three [R] brothers, [Mr S] and [Mr T]. It indicates that the Police investigated the complaint in the FIR and found that the [R] brothers were not involved in the commission of the crimes. It indicates that following further investigations the Police identified and charged the defendants [Mr S] and [Mr T]. It refers to “two sets of accused”; the [R] brothers nominated by the complainant [Mr E] and [Mr S] and [Mr T] nominated by the Police. It indicates that the two sets of accused were charged separately but that the Court had ordered a joint trial. It indicates that the prosecution case was conducted by the Police on behalf of the State and assisted by private counsel engaged by the complainant [Mr E].
The judgment indicates that the five defendants pleaded not guilty and the case was listed for trial. It indicates that during the trial another defendant, [Mr U], was acquitted. It indicates that [Mr E] and the first named applicant gave evidence in the prosecution case but that [Mr D] was withdrawn as a witness in the case [in] April 2010. It indicates that [Mr E] gave evidence that the motive for the murders was his family’s litigation against the defendants and the first named applicant gave evidence that the motive for the murders was a grudge the defendants had against his brother [Mr B] because of litigation between them.
The judgement indicates that evidence was given by [named person], in the prosecution case, that he and [another named person] identified the bodies of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece at the hospital prior to the post mortem examination.
The judgement indicates that the three [R] brothers’ defence was that [Mr E], [Mr D] and the first named applicant were not present at the time of the murders and that there were no witnesses to the murders. They alleged that [Mr E] had falsely accused them of the murders in revenge for the fact that [Mr E]’s father and brother were sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for assaulting and injuring [Mr ZR] and [Mr YR]. They alleged that the Police were complicit in fabricating evidence by changing the time of the lodgement of the FIR from 9.50am on [a day in] August 2008 to 5.30am on [the same day in] August 2008. They alleged that there is an unexplained delay of more than 8 hours in the lodgement of the FIR.
The judgment indicates that [the] District Emergency Officer, was called to give evidence in the defence case. He gave evidence that at 3:03am on [a day in] August 2008 a call was received at the control room of the Emergency Centre at Gujranwala in relation to some violence and two women being injured. He stated that an ambulance was dispatched and arrived at the location within six minutes. He stated that the Police were already present at the scene. He stated that the first named applicant’s niece had already passed away and that his sister-in-law was in a critical condition and lying on a cot. He stated that there was no one else in attendance with the two women. He stated that the women were transported by ambulance to the hospital and were accompanied by the Police.
The judgment indicates that the Court was satisfied on the evidence before it that the time of lodging of the FIR had been changed from 9.50am to 5.30am. The defence claimed that the delay in lodging the FIR was because the Police were waiting for family members to arrive at the hospital. The Court found that the delay of more than 8 hours from the time of the incident to the lodging of the FIR had not been adequately explained by the prosecution. The Court found that the evidence of [Mr E] and the first named applicant was not credible because, firstly, they and [Mr D], who were all related to the deceased women, stood by while the murders took place without trying to apprehend the murderers. Secondly, their clothes had no blood on them and would have been blood stained if they had been present at the time of the murders because of the extent of the injuries suffered by the deceased.
Thirdly, the murderers made no attempt to harm them despite their claimed presence at the scene of the murders. Fourthly, the medical evidence from the autopsies did not support their evidence of the injuries to the two deceased women. Fifthly, the ambulance officer gave evidence that there was no one with the two women when they arrived at the scene other than the Police who had arrived before them. The Court placed weight on the evidence given by independent witnesses being the ambulance officer and the doctor who conducted the post mortem. The Court was not satisfied that [Mr E] and the first named applicant were eye witnesses to the murders and found that they had fabricated their evidence. The judgment indicates that, other than for the evidence of [Mr E] and the first named applicant, there was no other evidence to connect the [R] brothers to the murders.
The judgment indicates that the Police alleged that their inquiries revealed that the defendant [Mr S] and the first named applicant’s niece were friends and involved in an “illicit relationship.” They alleged that the first named applicant’s niece became pregnant and demanded money from [Mr S]. They alleged that [Mr T] is a relative of [Mr S] and that [Mr S], with the help of [Mr T], decided to teach the first named applicant’s niece a lesson. They alleged that they went to the house at the invitation of the first named applicant’s niece and then killed her. It indicates that the autopsy report in relation to the first named applicant’s niece revealed that she was [pregnant] with a [fetus].
The judgment indicates that the Court was of the view that the Police had carried out their investigation “in the right direction” but that they failed to collect sufficient evidence to connect the defendants [Mr S] and [Mr T] to the murders. It indicates that the Police had recovered two pairs of shoes that had been left at the scene of the crime and that witnesses had identified these shoes as belonging to [Mr S] and [Mr T] but these witnesses were not called to give evidence at the trial. It indicates that the Police had tendered into evidence two daggers which they claimed were recovered from the home of [Mr S] and [Mr T] and were blood stained. However, no evidence was provided that the blood on the daggers matched that of the two deceased women. The Court commented on the fact that the Police did not conduct an identification parade with [Mr S] and [Mr T] to enable the three claimed eye witnesses to identify them.
The judgment indicates that the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the case against each of the defendants.
The judgment indicates that [Mr E] had lodged a private complaint against [Mr S] and [Mr T] but had not nominated their roles or assigned a motive to them. It also indicates that the first named applicant had made a private complaint to the Court in relation to the same offences and that the complaint was dismissed. It indicates that an appeal to the High Court at Lahore was also dismissed.
The judgment raises a number of concerns for the Tribunal. The Tribunal raised with the applicants its concerns in relation to the credibility of the first named applicant and the veracity of his claims in view of the inconsistencies between the evidence given by him and [Mr E] and other issues in the judgment such as the evidence of the ambulance officer, the delay in lodging the FIR because the Police were waiting for family members to arrive at the hospital, the Court not being satisfied that there were any eye witnesses to the murders, the motivation of the claimed eye witnesses and the Court not being satisfied that the prosecution case had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The first named applicant responded that he does not understand how [Mr E] could have given that statement and said what he did. This response does not address the issues raised by the Tribunal or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. The other applicants declined to respond.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicants its concerns in relation to the credibility of the claims that the first named applicant’s brother and nephew were refused bail and remanded in custody for 3 years for stealing electricity. The Tribunal referred to the judgment lodged by the applicants and noted that it tended to indicate that they were charged, convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in relation to [Mr ZR] and [Mr YR]. The Tribunal noted that the [R] brothers alleged that [Mr E] falsely accused them of being involved in the murder of his mother and sister to get revenge on them for what happened to his father and brother.
The first named applicant responded that it is normal in Pakistan that people are refused bail if they steal a bicycle. He stated that influential people have connections at a high level. He stated that people can spend 2 or 3 years in gaol for a small incident and that is what happened to his brother. He stated that in Pakistan influence works and you can build up whatever case you want. The third named applicant responded that he did not know the details of the case. He stated that money talks and you can buy the Police and Judges. He stated that anything can happen. The other three applicants declined to respond.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicants the information in the judgment that the Police alleged that the defendant [Mr S] was in a relationship with the first named applicant’s niece, that, as a result, she became pregnant, that she demanded money from [Mr S], that he and the defendant [Mr T] went to her house at night and killed her and her mother. The Tribunal noted that autopsies were carried out on the two deceased women that revealed that the first named applicant’s niece was [pregnant] and had a [fetus]. The Tribunal noted that this could lead it to the conclusion that the death of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece had nothing to do with a long running feud between his family and [Mr U] or the [R] family and that the deaths occurred because his niece was pregnant outside of marriage and was demanding money from her boyfriend who decided to kill her.
The first named applicant responded that in Pakistani society there is no such concept as a boyfriend. He stated that he did not know that his niece was pregnant and no one told him that. He stated that he only attended Court to give evidence. He stated that he had nothing to do with the discussions with the lawyers. He stated that when the Court required him to give evidence he attended Court and gave evidence. He stated that in Pakistan judges can be bought off. When the Tribunal pointed out that the doctor who conducted the autopsy and gave evidence at the trial was an independent witness, he responded that he did not know about that. He stated that if this was a problem then why were [Mr D]’s wife and child killed. The other applicants declined to respond.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicants the information in the judgment which indicates that there was insufficient evidence against the defendants and the Court dismissed the charges against them because it was not satisfied that the prosecution had made its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal noted that this was not consistent with the claims that the charges were dropped because of the defendants’ connections with the authorities. The first named applicant responded that the charges were not dismissed because of insufficient evidence but because of the defendants’ connections with “high people”. He stated that when the Police arrested them they admitted to killing them. He stated that he does not know what influence they had on the Judge and how they used it. He stated that in Pakistan rich people kill someone and get out. The other applicants declined to respond.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that around 2 years after the Court case was finalised [Mr D]’s wife and [age] year-old son were killed while he was at work. He claimed that there was no apparent motive for the attack so they suspect that [Mr D]’s family was targeted as revenge for him having provided a witness statement. He claimed that after [Mr D] was attacked, they felt afraid for their lives. He claimed that his wife limited her movements by avoiding the market where possible and if she needed to leave the house she covered her face so that she could not be recognised. He claimed that he travelled to Australia in 2011 for work and left his wife in the care of his sons with the intention of bringing them to Australia once he was settled and financially able to do so. He claimed that they had returned to Gujranwala because they thought it would be safer there. The Tribunal discussed these claims with him.
The first named applicant initially gave evidence that [Mr D] gave evidence in the Court case. He stated that [Mr D]’s wife and son were killed [in] December 2010. He stated that the Police investigated the murders but did not arrest anyone. He stated that neighbours had seen people running away but were not prepared to be witnesses. He later stated that [Mr D]’s wife and son were killed to prevent him from giving evidence in the Court case. When the Tribunal pointed out that in his visa application he claimed that they were killed after the Court case was finalised, he responded that they were able to appeal to the High Court. When asked whether he or his brother [Mr B] had commenced civil proceedings against the defendants, he responded no. This is not consistent with the information in the judgment which indicates that he made a private complaint to the Court, the complaint was dismissed, he appealed to the High Court at Lahore and his appeal was dismissed.
The applicants have filed with the Department a FIR dated [December] 2010 which indicates that [Mr D]’s wife and son were killed on that date. The judgment filed with the Tribunal indicates that [Mr D] did not give evidence in the Court proceedings and that he was withdrawn as a witness [in] April 2010. This was more than 7 months before his wife and son were killed. After he was withdrawn as a witness [in] April 2010 he was no longer a threat to the [R] brothers and there was no reason to kill his wife and son to prevent him from giving evidence in the Court case. The Tribunal raised this as an issue and noted that it had serious doubts that the deaths of [Mr D]’s wife and son had anything to do with the Court case or the feud between the first named applicant’s family and [Mr H] or the [R]s.
The first named applicant responded that [Mr D] was a poor person. He stated that he used to accompany them to Court at the beginning. He stated that he did not know that he had withdrawn his statement. He stated that because he was an eye witness he was always in fear. He stated that there was no reason to kill his wife and son. He stated that [Mr D] did not have a fight with anyone else. He stated that the Judge was creating problems. When the Tribunal pointed out that it was not the Judge but the Police Prosecutor who withdrew him as a witness, he responded that [Mr D] was a poor person and was running his home on his earnings. He stated that he had to stay in Court all day and was not able to do his work. He stated that if he worked he could earn money and look after his children. He stated that he did not know when he withdrew his statement. This response does not address the issues raised by the Tribunal or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. The other applicants declined to respond.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that 6 months prior to filing his application for Protection visas on 30 April 2014, his wife and sons heard noises on the roof of their home in the middle of the night. He claimed that neighbours later told them that they had, on several occasions, seen a few men on the roof hanging around suspiciously. He claimed that he feared the men were taking advantage of his absence to make a revenge attack on his family. He claimed that his neighbours formed a watch committee to patrol the neighbourhood and that this deterred the men from returning until he could take his family out of Pakistan. The Tribunal discussed these claims with him.
The first named applicant gave evidence that he, his wife and children were threatened by [Mr H]. He stated that when they attended Court to give evidence and were in the waiting room [Mr H] told them that he would not spare them. He stated that he made threats on four occasions in the waiting room or inside the gate. He stated that he told the Police about the threats but they did not provide him with protection. He stated that they asked for money. He stated that the last time he was threatened was [in] May 2010. When asked whether [Mr H] did anything to carry out his threats, he responded no. When asked why he thinks he will now want to harm him, he responded that they still feel that their lives are threatened. He stated that these people never spare eye witnesses. He stated that the case can be reopened.
The Tribunal asked the first named applicant what threats [Mr H] made to his wife and he responded that he did not threaten his wife. When the Tribunal reminded him of his earlier evidence that [Mr H] threaten him, his wife and his children, he responded that he did not threaten his wife or children. When asked who threatened his wife, he responded that after he came to Australia “some suspicious kind of people” went on their roof at night. He stated that it started in 2012 and happened many times. He stated that people can walk across the roofs from house to house as the alleys are small. He stated that this had not happened on their roof before and it was a safe area. He stated that the neighbours created a group of boys to stand guard at night. He stated that as a result this stopped by the end of December 2012. This is not consistent with his claim in his visa application that his wife and sons heard noises on their roof 6 months prior to 30 April 2014.
The Tribunal asked the first named applicant what threats were made against his children. He responded that when they were going to school some suspicious people followed them. He stated that his wife then started accompanying them to and from school. He stated that they would walk to and from school. He stated that the walk took 20 to 25 minutes. He stated that this happened in December 2012 and became less after his wife accompanied them to and from school. He stated that the last time this happened was in December 2012. When asked who these people were, he responded that they did not know but they were “suspicious people”. When asked why they were suspicious, he responded that they had beards, their faces were “strange” and they stared. This timeframe is not consistent with what he claimed in his visa application.
There are many inconsistencies between the evidence given by the first named applicant and the other applicants in relation to these claimed threats. The applicants have filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record which indicates that during their interview with the Department on 3 February 2015 the second named applicant made new claims that different men followed her and her sons all the time, on three occasions neighbours saw men on their roof, she had to wear a hijab when she went out and she restricted her movements.. During her evidence to the Tribunal, she stated that “suspicious people” stood in the way of her children and followed them on their way to and from school. She stated that she thereafter accompanied her children to and from school every day.

The Tribunal asked the second named applicant when this started. She initially stated that it started after the murders in 2008. She then stated that it started after the first named applicant and the others gave evidence in relation to the murders in 2009 or 2010. When asked how often this happened, she initially stated once or twice and then stated three or four times a week. She stated that this continued until they left Pakistan to come to Australia “in a different shape”. When asked what she meant by that, she stated that they would go on the roof of the house. When asked when that started, she stated that it started after the first named applicant came to Australia in 2013 and happened many times. She stated that her brother-in-law organised some people to guard the house and it stopped thereafter.
The third named applicant gave evidence that some suspicious people followed them when they were going to school. When asked why they were suspicious, he stated that they did not know who these people were but had seen them and felt that they were following them. He stated that this started around 2010 and stopped after they used to go to and from school with the second named applicant and the neighbour’s children. He stated that it happened for one month in 2010. He also stated that some unknown people went on their roof at night in 2009 or 2010. He stated that family members organised a “watch party” and it stopped after a few weeks.
The fourth named applicant gave evidence that when he and his brothers were going to school “weird people with beards” looked at them. He stated that this happened in 2010 or 2011 and lasted for 3 to 4 months. He stated that he was told that people went on their roof. He stated that, as far as he is aware, it happened once in 2010 or 2011.
The fifth named applicant gave evidence that some suspicious people followed him and his brothers when they went to school. He stated that this happened in 2006 or 2007 and lasted for a few weeks. He stated that some people went on their roof at night in about 2010 or 2011. He stated that it stopped after a few weeks.
The Tribunal put these inconsistencies in the evidence to the applicants, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and raised its concerns in relation to the credibility of their claims. The first named applicant responded that it is real and people went on their roof. He stated that he was not aware of it and they do not know the dates. He stated that they had not planned to come to Australia and seek asylum here and, if they had, they would have written down the dates and been consistent. He stated that they do not know the dates. He stated that the fifth named applicant was confused and said 2006 or 2007. The second, third and fourth named applicants responded that they agreed with the first named applicant. The fifth named applicant stated that he agreed with the first named applicant. He stated that he was confused and did not know what to say. He stated that he was in Year [number] in 2010.
The Tribunal accepts that, with the passage of time and the age of the fourth and fifth named applicants at that time, it may be difficult to remember the dates when incidents took place and the details of those incidents. The Tribunal accepts that sometime in 2009 or 2010 the third, fourth and fifth named applicants may have been followed on their way to school and that unknown people went on to their roof at night. The Tribunal accepts that this may have been for the purpose of intimidating the first named applicant to prevent him from giving evidence in the Court case. The Tribunal does not accept that these incidents took place after the Court case was finalised and up until the time that the second named applicant left Pakistan to come to Australia.
The Tribunal is of the view that if [Mr H] or the [R] brothers wanted to get revenge for being implicated in the murders of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece they would have targeted [Mr E], who was the complainant in the FIR and accused the [R] brothers of the murders, and the first named applicant who gave evidence in the Court case against the [R] brothers and commenced civil proceedings against them. They had plenty of time and opportunities between 2008 and the first named applicant leaving Pakistan for Australia in 2011 to harm him but did not do so. He returned to Pakistan twice in 2012 and 2013 and they did not harm him then. His family remained in Pakistan, without his protection, after he left Pakistan [in] February 2011. They had plenty of time and opportunities between [February] 2011 and [March] 2014 to harm them but did not do so. It is therefore highly unlikely that they would now be interested in harming the first named applicant or his family if they return to Pakistan.

100. When the Tribunal raised these issues with the applicants, the first named applicant responded that these people are always looking for opportunities. He stated that his house was a safe house. He stated that when he returned to Pakistan he restricted his movements. He stated that when he returned to Pakistan in 2013 he was there for 4 weeks and only left the house to visit his relatives. The Tribunal does not find this response to be convincing in view of his evidence in his visa application that he returned to Pakistan in 2013 to organize documents to obtain visas for his family. The other applicants declined to respond.
101. The Tribunal is also of the view that if [Mr H] or the [R] brothers wanted to get revenge on [Mr D] for claiming to be a witness to the murders of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece or providing a witness statement as claimed (even though he did not give evidence at the trial) they had plenty of time and opportunities to do so. The first named applicant initially gave evidence that [Mr D] still lives in Gujranwala and would leave if he had an opportunity to do so. However, he subsequently claimed that he was in hiding.
102. In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that [Mr E] was the main complainant against the accused and feared for his life. He claimed that he made arrangements to depart Pakistan and seek asylum in [Country 1] after the investigation was finalised. He claimed that he was granted a Protection visa by the [Country 1] government. The judgement in relation to the Court case indicates that [Mr E] attended and gave evidence at the trial. The Tribunal therefore does not accept that he left Pakistan after the investigation was finalised as he clearly remained in Pakistan after the investigation was finalised, the defendants were charged, proceedings were commenced and during the trial.
103. The Tribunal has before it a document titled ‘Subsidiary Protection’ dated [February] 2014 issued by the Ministry for [Immigration] in [Country 1]. It indicates that [Mr E] was granted ‘subsidiary protection’ [in] January 2011 and that it was valid until [January] 2015. It required him to attend [in] January 2015 to renew the certificate. The Tribunal also has before it a document that indicates that he was granted a temporary Residence Permit that was issued [in] February 2018 and is valid until [February] 2021. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate on what basis he claimed asylum, on what basis he was granted ‘subsidiary protection and the requirements to renew the certificate. The Tribunal places little weight on this evidence.
104. In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that they tried to seek justice for the murder of their family members but the Pakistani system failed them and left them vulnerable to further attack. He claimed that the corruption in Pakistan makes it impossible for ordinary people to seek justice and protection. The judgment from the Court case indicates that the Police conducted an investigation into the murder of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece and found that the [R] brothers were not involved in their murders. During the course of the investigation the Police identified the defendants [Mr S] and [Mr T] as suspects in the two murders, charged them and brought them before the Court. [Mr E] identified the [R] brothers as the perpetrators of the murders and his case was jointly heard with the case brought by the Police against [Mr S] and [Mr T]. The Police Prosecutor conducted the trial on behalf of the State and was assisted by private counsel engaged by [Mr E].
105. The judgment indicates that the Court preferred the evidence given by independent witnesses being the ambulance officer who attended the scene of the murders and the doctor who conducted the autopsies. For a number of reasons referred above the Court did not accept that the first named applicant, [Mr E] and [Mr D] were present when the murders took place and found that they had fabricated their evidence in relation to witnessing the [R] brothers committing the murders. The Court found that there was no other evidence connecting the [R] brothers to the murders and dismissed the charges in relation to them.
106. The judgment also indicates that the Court was of the view that the Police investigation in relation to [Mr S] and [Mr T] was “in the right direction” and the evidence suggests that they had the motive and the opportunity to commit the murders. The Court was critical of the methods the Police used to identify the defendants and their failure to put crucial evidence before the Court connecting them to the two murders. The Court was therefore not satisfied of the guilt of the two defendants beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the charges against them.
107. In these circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that the Pakistan legal system failed to provide the first named applicant with justice in relation to the [R] brothers. The Tribunal accepts that the Police were unsuccessful in getting convictions against [Mr S] and [Mr T] and that no one was convicted of the murders. The judgment tends to indicate that this was more likely because of insufficient training of the Police in relation to gathering evidence for the purpose of Court proceedings and/or incompetence rather than corruption. The Tribunal notes that counsel employed by [Mr E] assisted the Police Prosecutor at the trial and presumably had some input into what evidence was put before the Court in the Prosecution case. If this is the case, then he also bears some responsibility for a poorly prepared Prosecution case.
108. The judgment indicates that the first named applicant had made a private complaint to the Court in relation to the same offences and that the complaint was dismissed. It indicates that an appeal to the High Court at Lahore was also dismissed. He has filed with the Tribunal a letter dated [July] 2016 from him to the Chief Justice of the High Court in Lahore and a letter dated [August] 2016 from the Assistant Registrar of the Lahore High Court to him. Both letters are written in English and there is nothing on them to indicate that they have been translated into English. There is a stamp on them to indicate that they are attested by a Notary Public. The letter from the High Court is not on a letterhead, has no contact details and is headed “Lahore High Court, Lahore”.
109. In his letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, the first named applicant stated that his sister-in-law and niece were murdered, the Police conducted an investigation, arrested people “known as [Mr S], [Mr ZR], [Mr YR] and some more unknown people”, they were “found guilty and accepted their crime and were sent to gaol for trial”. He stated that the accused have very good connections with the Police and higher authorities everywhere. He stated that, with the help of the Police, they were able to obtain bail in the High Court and were released. He stated that after their release they threatened him, [Mr E] and [Mr D]. He stated that [Mr E] went to [Country 1]. He referred to the deaths of [Mr D]’s wife and son and stated that he and his whole family are stressed and “grieved” by the murders. He stated that the Police are not cooperating with them.
110. The letter from the Assistant Registrar of the High Court at Lahore to him indicates that his “application has been filed” and he is advised to avail himself of a “legal remedy before proper forum”.
111. The Tribunal asked the first named applicant why he had written to the High Court at Lahore. He responded that he was trying to tell the Court that he was a victim of injustice and that it was continuing. In view of the information in the judgment, his letter is factually incorrect in that the accused were not “found guilty and accepted their crime”. In fact they all pleaded not guilty and following a trial, in which counsel engaged by [Mr E] assisted the Police Prosecutor, the cases against them were dismissed. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant feels aggrieved by the fact that no one has been convicted of the murders of his sister-in-law and niece, feels that an injustice has been committed and wants justice to prevail. However, it is apparent that his complaint to the Chief Justice of the High Court in Lahore will not give him the desired result.
112. The Tribunal has been provided with a number of written statements from witnesses in Pakistan. These statements are from [Ms A], [Mr N], [Mr O], [Mr P] and [Mr Q], The contents of these statements are very similar to the letter written by the first named applicant to the Chief Justice of the High Court at Lahore (see paragraph 109 herein) and tend to indicate that they were all written by the same person. When asked about these statements, the first named applicant stated that they are from witnesses who went to the graveyard. He stated that they went to the Court and Mr [Q] prepared the written statements for them in English. A statement from [Ms A] indicates that she is the first named applicant’s sister, [Mr N] is his brother and [Mr Q] is his brother-in-law.
113. The Tribunal has been provided with a written statement from [Mr K], advocate in the High Court, in which he states that he conducted the trial and the first named applicant was a witness in the trial in relation to the murder of his sister-in-law and niece. (It appears that he may have been the private counsel engaged by [Mr E]). He stated that there were five accused and they were “hardened, desperate and dangerous” criminals who were intent on murdering the first named applicant. He stated that they slaughtered the whole family of the other eye witness. He stated that the life of the first named applicant is not safe and secure in Pakistan. He does not indicate the basis on which he has come to the conclusion that the five accused in the trial are intent on murdering the first named applicant and that his life is not safe and secure in Pakistan. For the many reasons given herein, the Tribunal does not accept this evidence.
114. The Tribunal has been provided with an English translation of an article in the [Newspaper] dated [August] 2008. The translation is of very poor quality but it appears to be a report on the murder of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece and refers to a dispute between his brother and [Mr YR] and the fact that his brother and nephew were in gaol.
115. The Tribunal informed the first named applicant that it accepts that his sister-in-law and niece were killed but had difficulty accepting that it was for the reasons claimed. He responded that he was not aware that his niece had had a relationship with a man.
116. In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that the authorities are unable to protect themselves because of the current security situation and do not have power to offer protection to ordinary Pakistani citizens. He claimed that the security issues affect the whole country so it is not safe to travel or relocate to other areas.
117. The country information obtained from DFAT indicates the following:
That Pakistan continues to face security threats from insurgent, separatist and   sectarian militant groups. The security situation varies across the country. While   militant attacks can occur anywhere, Punjab province tends to experience fewer   incidents than other areas.
In June 2014, the Pakistan Armed Forces launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb, a major   offensive against terrorist groups across the country
In December 2014, an attack on a school in Peshawar resulted in the deaths of 140   people, including 132 children. The attack led to the government introducing a   National Action Plan (NAP), which, along with Operation Zarb-e-Azb, forms a civil-                  military effort to combat terrorist, separatist and criminal groups across Pakistan.   Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the NAP are credited with a significant reduction in the                number of violent attacks in Pakistan.
The government and military operations have disrupted the activities of militant   groups and thousands of militants have been killed, including the high-profile leader              of Lashkar-e Jhangvi (LeJ), Malik Ishaq, in 2015. Military courts have tried and   convicted thousands of people with links to terrorist organisations. However, militant                 groups remain active across Pakistan, despite their more limited access to former   safe-havens in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and North Waziristan. These groups continue to               attack government and sectarian targets.
As well as targeting insurgent and sectarian groups, government and military   crackdowns have sought to tackle violent and organised crime across the country,   particularly in large urban centres such as Karachi.
While reliable data are unavailable, DFAT understands that serious crime across   Pakistan has reduced significantly since the commencement of Operation Zarb-e-  Azb and the NAP, including in Karachi. [1]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report, 1 September 2017.

118. In view of the above country information the Tribunal does not accept that the Pakistani authorities are unable to protect themselves because of the current security situation and do not have power to offer protection to ordinary Pakistani citizens. The above country information indicates that there is generalised violence in Pakistan but it varies across the country. It indicates that Punjab Province tends to experience fewer incidents than other areas. The applicants are from Punjab Province. The Tribunal does not accept that any of the applicants are the targets of the security threats.
119. In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that he has been working in Australia for more than 3 years and Pakistanis will perceive him to be rich. He claimed that he will be targeted for kidnapping by gangs or Taliban extremists for the purpose of extorting ransom money if he returns to Pakistan. He claimed that he fears that he and his family will be targeted and harmed by outlaws, gangs and extremist groups including the Taliban and Lashke Jangui. Subsequently, his former migration agent made new claims to the Department that he fears harm for reason of his imputed political opinion (pro-Western/ anti-Taliban/anti-LeJ) as a result of him returning to Pakistan after his prolonged residence in a Western country and his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’ and/or ‘witnesses in Pakistani Court proceedings’.
120. The first named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that “suspicious people” kidnap rich people in Pakistan and ask them for money. He stated that he is speculating that this could happen to him. He indicated that he only wished to proceed with his claims in relation to “the killings”. Towards the end of his evidence at the first hearing the Tribunal asked him whether, besides what the Tribunal had discussed with him, he had any other reason why he feared returning to Pakistan. He responded no.

148. The third named applicant gave evidence that did not undertake any paid work in Pakistan but is working part-time in Australia. He stated that he has completed a [Qualification] in Australia. The Tribunal discussed his claims with him. He stated that he is afraid for his life and the lives of his family because his father was a witness in the Court case and because of what happened to the other witnesses. When the Tribunal pointed out that, if they were at risk of harm, the perpetrators of the harm had plenty of time and opportunity to harm them but did not, he responded that he is still afraid that they may do something.
149. When asked whether he would have any problems if he returned to Pakistan because he had lived in a Western country like Australia, the third named applicant stated that the lifestyle in Australia is a very different to the lifestyle in Pakistan and that it would be difficult for him to re-adjust to life in Pakistan after having lived in Australia. When asked whether he would have any problems if he returned to Pakistan because he had sought asylum in Australia, he responded that he could. When asked why he stated that he did not think it would be a problem and could not think of a reason. He stated that his age is not an issue.
150. The fourth named applicant gave evidence that he completed Year [number] in Pakistan and did not undertake any paid work in Pakistan. He stated that he has not undertaken any studies in Australia. He stated that he is working full-time [in] a [workplace]. He stated that he coordinates [certain] services in the [workplace]. He stated that he is afraid to return to Pakistan because of what happened to his uncle and cousin who, along with his father, were witnesses in a Court case. He stated that his uncle’s family and cousin’s family were killed. He stated that thereafter they were told they could not go outside. He stated that he used to play [sports]. When asked whether he would have any problems if he returned to Pakistan because he had lived in a Western country like Australia, he responded yes.
151. The fourth named applicant stated that the lifestyle and studies in Pakistan are different and he would not be able to get a job. He stated that in Australia students can work. He stated that he wants to study but cannot because he has to support the family. When asked why he would not be able to find a job in Pakistan, he responded that he has never worked there and it is not easy to get a job. When asked whether he had any other concerns besides difficulty adjusting to the lifestyle and obtaining employment, he responded no.
152. The Tribunal asked the fourth named applicant whether he would have any problems if he returned to Pakistan because he had sought asylum in Australia. He responded “sort of”. He stated that some martyrs or religious people or terrorists could find out that they had applied for asylum in Australia and did not receive it. When asked how they would find out, he responded that a family member may say something. When asked whether he was speculating that a terrorist could find out and harm him, he agreed. He stated that he has no concerns in relation to his age.
153. The Tribunal asked the fourth named applicant why he fears being kidnapped if he returns to Pakistan. He responded that he is afraid this could happen to him if he returns to Pakistan from Australia. He stated that it is on the news every day. When the Tribunal pointed out that his father returned to Pakistan from Australia twice and nothing happened to him, he responded that it was good luck. He stated that they lived in a safe area and his parents and brother always checked that the door was locked. He stated that if they went out they needed to tell their mother. When the Tribunal pointed out that thousands of Pakistanis return to Pakistan after having lived in a Western country and nothing happens to them, he responded that they are scared too and think that these things could happen to them.
154. The Tribunal asked the fourth named applicant what work he would like to do in Pakistan. He responded that he would like to work in [a certain] industry but there is no opportunity to do so in Pakistan. When the Tribunal pointed out that he would need to move to Islamabad to do so, he responded that he has no family there, would have to start from nothing and would need a lot of time. When asked what he thought would happen if he returned to Pakistan, he stated that he could not say that something would happen but you never know and he does not know. He stated that he has not been in Pakistan for a few years but has seen the news and it is getting bad.
155. The fifth named applicant gave evidence that he is currently studying for a [Qualification] [in Australia]. He stated that he works part-time in a [workplace]. He stated that he did not undertake any paid work in Pakistan. He stated that he is concerned that his life and the lives of his family would be at risk if they return to Pakistan. When the Tribunal pointed out that nothing had happened to him or his family members in all the time they had lived in Pakistan, he responded that people went on their roof and followed them. When the Tribunal pointed out that this happened in 2010, he stated that he did not know what their plan was and they did try to follow them.
156. The Tribunal asked the fifth named applicant whether he would have any problems if he returned to Pakistan because he had lived in a Western country like Australia and he responded yes. He stated that he has been studying in Australia for 4 years and that the studies here are very different. He stated that he cannot return to Pakistan and do different studies. He stated that their lifestyle has changed and it would be difficult to re-adjust if they return to Pakistan. When asked whether he would have any problems if he returned to Pakistan because he had sought asylum in Australia, he responded yes. When asked why, he stated that it would not be a problem. When asked whether he would have any problem if he returned to Pakistan because of his age, he responded no.
157. The Tribunal has had regard to the submissions made by the applicants’ former migration agent.
Other considerations
158. The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility when assessing the applicants’ credibility. The Tribunal has also had regard to the DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan dated 1 September 2017 and the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Findings
Having considered all the claims, the evidence and the submission, the Tribunal accepts that in 2009 the first named applicant was travelling on a bus from Gujranwala to Lahore. The Tribunal accepts that the bus was stopped by armed robbers who stole the passengers’ valuables including women’s jewellery, wallets, telephones and watches. The Tribunal accepts that one passenger tried to protest and was shot and injured. The Tribunal does not accept that he was killed. The Tribunal accepts that the injured man was taken to hospital and this incident was reported to the Police. The Tribunal accepts that the robbers were criminals trying to make money. The Tribunal finds that this was a random act of criminality and that the first named applicant was not the intended target of the robbers.
159. The Tribunal accepts that in 2012 the third named applicant was travelling to Lahore University by van when the van was stopped by two armed men who ordered the driver to drive off the road. The Tribunal accepts that there were a number of passengers in the van and they started shouting. The Tribunal accepts that the men wanted to steal money and mobile telephones but were frightened away. The Tribunal accepts that they ran away without stealing anything. The Tribunal does not accept that two passengers tried to argue with the two armed men and were taken away. The Tribunal does not accept that the two armed men stole money from the third named applicant and other passengers and beat them. The Tribunal accepts that the two armed men were criminals trying to make money. The Tribunal finds that this was a random act of criminality and that the third named applicant was not the intended target of the two armed men.
160. The Tribunal accepts that in about 2011 the first named applicant’s sister travelled to the city by rickshaw to do some shopping. The Tribunal accepts that she shared the rickshaw with two other people who put something on her nose that made her unconscious. The Tribunal accepts that whilst she was unconscious they stole all her jewellery. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant reported the theft to the Police. The Tribunal does not accept that his sister was kidnapped by a gang when travelling alone to the market. The Tribunal does not accept that she was taken to a nearby field and everything stolen from her. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he was the intended target in this incident or that this act of criminality was aimed at him.
161. The Tribunal accepts that on one occasion the first and third named applicants were travelling on a motor cycle when they heard a gunshot and turned off the road into an alley. The Tribunal accepts that the gunshot was not aimed at them and they were not the intended target of the shooter. The Tribunal does not accept that they were shot at because of the Court case and ran away to save their lives as claimed by the second named applicant.
162. The Tribunal finds that none of the applicants were the intended targets of these random acts of criminality and that these incidents were part of the generalised crime and violence in Pakistan.
163. The Tribunal accepts that there was a long running civil dispute between the first named applicant’s brother [Mr B] and the owner of a neighbouring madrassa. The Tribunal accepts that, as a result of the dispute, [Mr B] and his son [Mr C] were arrested and imprisoned for 3 years. The Tribunal accepts that they were accused of stealing electricity. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not accept that they were denied bail in relation to stealing electricity, were involved in Court proceedings for 3 to 3 ½ years in relation to charges of stealing electricity and were released without conviction. In view of the evidence referred to in the judgment of the Court, referred to above, the Tribunal is of the view that it is more likely that they were convicted on charges of assault occasioning actual harm in relation to [Mr ZR] and [Mr YR], sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and served 3 years.
164. The Tribunal accepts that in August 2008 the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece were murdered. The Tribunal accepts that his nephew [Mr E] lodged a FIR with the Police and identified the three [R] brothers as the murderers. The Tribunal accepts that autopsies were performed on the two deceased women and that it was discovered that the first named applicant’s niece was [pregnant]. The Tribunal accepts that the Police conducted an investigation and were not satisfied that the [R] brothers were involved in the murders. The Tribunal accepts that the investigation led the Police to believe that a man named [Mr S] had been in a relationship with the first named applicant’s niece, that when she realised she was pregnant she demanded money from him and that he, with the help of a relative named [Mr T], decided to kill her. The Tribunal accepts that the Police charged the two men with the murder of the two women. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr E] commenced proceedings against the [R] brothers and that the Court made a decision to have a joint hearing in relation to both sets of proceedings which arose from the same facts. The Tribunal accepts that at the trial the Police Prosecutor represented the State and that counsel engaged by [Mr E] assisted him.
165. The Tribunal accepts that during the trial [Mr H] told the first named applicant, whilst he was in the waiting room at the Court, that they would not spare him. The Tribunal accepts that this occurred on more than one occasion and that the last time it occurred was in May 2010. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant perceived this to be a threat and reported it to the Police. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr H] did not do anything to carry out this perceived threat. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr H] told the first named applicant that he was well connected with the government authorities, Police, Judges and Prison authorities so he could make trouble for them if they did not stop giving evidence. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr H] made any threats against the first named applicant’s wife or children. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant and [Mr E] gave evidence during the trial. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr D] was withdrawn as a witness in the prosecution case [in] April 2010.
166. The Tribunal accepts that for the reasons set out in the judgment of the Court, referred to above, the Court dismissed the case against the [R] brothers and dismissed the charges against [Mr S] and [Mr T]. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the charges were dismissed because the defendants had connections to the authorities. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not accept that the murders of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece had anything to do with the dispute between [Mr B] and the owner of the neighbouring madrassa or previous litigation against [Mr ZR]/the [R] brothers or [Mr H] or the [R] brothers.
167. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant commenced civil proceedings in the Court in relation to the murder of his sister-in-law and niece and his application was dismissed. The Tribunal accepts that he then appealed to the High Court in Lahore and his appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal accepts that [in] July 2016 he wrote to the Chief Justice of the High Court at Lahore complaining of the injustice and that he received a response from the Assistant Registrar of the High Court at Lahore dated [August] 2016 advising him to seek a legal remedy in the proper forum.
168. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr D] was withdrawn as a witness in the trial [in] April 2010 and that he did not give evidence in the trial. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant was not aware that [Mr D] had been withdrawn as a witness in the trial [in] April 2010. The Tribunal is of the view that he is not fully aware of the facts surrounding the murders and the details of the Court case.
169. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr D]’s wife and son were killed [in] December 2010. The Tribunal accepts that the Police investigated the murders but did not arrest anyone as there were no witnesses. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr D] gave evidence at the trial or, alternatively, that his wife and son were killed to prevent him from giving evidence at the trial or some other Court case in the future. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the deaths of [Mr D]’s wife and son had anything to do with the dispute between [Mr B] and the owner of the neighbouring madrassa or with previous litigation against [Mr ZR]/the [R] brothers or with [Mr H] or with the [R] brothers.
170. The Tribunal accepts that sometime in 2009 or 2010 the third, fourth and fifth named applicants may have been watched or followed on their way to school and that unknown people went onto their roof at night. The Tribunal accepts that this may have been for the purpose of intimidating the first named applicant to prevent him from giving evidence in the Court case. The Tribunal accepts that the third named applicant may have been afraid of the person/people who follow them. The Tribunal accepts that during this period the second named applicant accompanied the third, fourth and fifth named applicants as they walked to and from school each day. The Tribunal does not accept that these incidents took place after the Court case was finalised and up until the time that the second named applicant left Pakistan to come to Australia. The Tribunal rejects the conflicting evidence given by the applicants in relation to when this started, how often it happened, how long it lasted and when it stopped.
171. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr E] left Pakistan and travelled to [Country 1] where he sought asylum. The Tribunal does not accept that he did so after the investigation was finalised. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that he gave evidence at the trial so he remained in Pakistan until at least the trial. The Tribunal accepts that he was granted ‘subsidiary protection’ [in] January 2011 and that it was valid until [January] 2015. The Tribunal accepts that this was extended until [February] 2021 and that he was granted a temporary Residence Permit until that date.
172. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant and the members of his extended family and community were deeply affected by the deaths of his sister-in-law and niece and [Mr D]’s wife and son (as is evidenced by the witness statements referred to in paragraph 113 herein). The Tribunal accepts that he feels aggrieved by the fact that no one has been convicted of the murders of his sister-in-law and niece, feels that an injustice has been committed and wants justice to prevail. The Tribunal is of the view that he is utterly convinced that these deaths are connected to the long term dispute between his brother [Mr B] and the owner of the neighbouring madrassa and that [Mr H] and the [R] brothers are responsible for them and will not change his views even if presented with probative evidence to the contrary.
173. The Tribunal is also of the view that the first named applicant is utterly convinced that the charges against the defendants were dismissed because of their influence and connections with the authorities. This is not consistent with the judgment filed with the Tribunal which indicates that the charges against the [R] brothers were dismissed because the Court accepted the evidence given by two independent witnesses, found that there were no witnesses to the murders of the first named applicant’s sister-in-law and niece, found for a number of reasons that [Mr E] and the first named applicant had fabricated their evidence that they witnessed the murders and there was no other evidence to connect the [R] brothers to the murders. The judgment also indicates that the charges against [Mr S] and [Mr T] were dismissed primarily because there was insufficient evidence before the Court to satisfy the Court of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court was critical of the Police and it appears that the inability to obtain a conviction against [Mr S] and [Mr T] was a result of the Police being insufficiently trained in relation to obtaining evidence for the purpose of Court proceedings and/or incompetent and the Prosecution case being poorly prepared and presented to the Court.
174. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant may feel that his family tried to seek justice for the murder of their family members but the Pakistani system failed them and left them vulnerable to further attack. In view of the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that he or any of the other applicants are vulnerable to further attacks from the perpetrators of the murders. The Tribunal does not accept that corruption in Pakistan makes it impossible for ordinary people to seek justice and protection. However, DFAT assesses that State protection in Pakistan is limited by resources shortages, personal socio-economic status and, in some cases, political will.[4] In view of the country information referred to in paragraph 118 above, the Tribunal does not accept that the Pakistani authorities are unable to protect themselves because of the current security situation and do not have power to offer protection to ordinary Pakistani citizens.

[4] Ibid.
175. The Tribunal accepts that there is generalised violence in Pakistan but the country information referred to in paragraph 118 above indicates that it varies across the country. It indicates that Punjab Province, where the applicants are from, tends to experience fewer incidents than other areas. According to DFAT, while reliable data is unavailable, “DFAT understands that serious crime across Pakistan has reduced significantly since the commencement of Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the NAP, including in Karachi.”[5] The Tribunal does not accept that the applicants will be targeted and harmed by outlaws, gangs and extremist groups including the Taliban and Lashke Jangui.
[5] Ibid.
176. The Tribunal accepts that the applicants may have a subjective fear that they are at risk of serious harm or significant harm at the hands of the people responsible for killing the members of their extended family. However, in view of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it is a well-founded fear. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are at risk of serious harm or significant harm if they return to Pakistan because the first named applicant was a witness to the murders of his sister-in-law and niece and/or gave evidence in the Court case and/or because of the feud between his brother [Mr B] and the owner of the neighbouring madrassa.
177. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant would not be able to find employment if he returns to Pakistan because of his age. The Tribunal is of the view that his extensive work experience in Pakistan and in Australia and the new skills he has acquired in Australia will stand him in good stead in finding employment in Pakistan. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he would be at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Pakistan for reason of his actual or imputed political opinion (pro-Western/anti-Taliban/anti-LeJ) as a result of him returning to Pakistan after a prolonged residence in a Western country. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he would be at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Pakistan for reason of his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’, and/or “witnesses in Pakistani Court proceedings”.
178. The Tribunal does not accept that it was especially unsafe for the second named applicant in Pakistan. The Tribunal does not accept that leaving the house presented a risk of attack by religious extremists and gangs if she was not in the company of the first named applicant or the company of another adult male. The Tribunal does not accept that her fear prevented her from leaving the house. The Tribunal accepts that between 2009 and 2010 she accompanied her children when they walked to and from school. The Tribunal accepts that during the Court case part of the first named applicant’s income was diverted towards legal costs and other expenses and that this made it difficult for her to pay for the household expenses and her children’s fees. The Tribunal accepts that in 2012 she travelled to [Country 2] [and] was away for a month. The Tribunal accepts that she went to [Country 2] as part of a group and was not accompanied by any member of her immediate family.
179. The Tribunal accepts that the second named applicant did not wish to leave her house in Pakistan and come to Australia but did so for the sake of her husband and children. The Tribunal accepts that she does not undertake paid work in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that she feels that women are not respected in Pakistan. The Tribunal does not accept that she will be killed if she returns to Pakistan because she is a woman. The Tribunal is not satisfied that her claims that she wore a hijab when she went out, that there is hostility towards women driving in Pakistan and that she was unable to learn English in Pakistan amount to serious harm or significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that she would be at risk of serious harm or significant harm if she returns to Pakistan for reason of her membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’, and/or ‘women in Pakistan’.
180. The Tribunal does not accept that the third, fourth or fifth named applicants are of school age and finds that they are now all adults and no longer attend school. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the current security conditions in Pakistan make it unsafe for them to attend school or that any attacks on schools by Islamist extremists would impact on them. The Tribunal does not accept that any of them are members of the particular social group ‘children in Pakistan’.
181. The Tribunal accepts that it may be difficult for the third named applicant to re-adjust to life in Pakistan after having lived in Australia for several years. The Tribunal accepts that people in Pakistan may know that he has been overseas because he now speaks English better than most Pakistanis and with a different accent. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he would be at risk of serious harm or significant harm for these reasons if he returns to Pakistan.
182. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the third named applicant would be at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Pakistan for reason of his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’.
183. The Tribunal accepts that the fourth named applicant completed Year [number] in Pakistan at the end of 2012 or the beginning of 2013. The Tribunal accepts that he worked as [an Occupation 1] in [Australia]. The Tribunal does not accept that he would like to work as [an Occupation 1] in Pakistan but that such work is not possible due to [a circumstance there]. The Tribunal notes that he is currently not working as [an Occupation 1] and is working full-time [in] a [workplace]. The Tribunal accepts that he would like to work in [a certain] industry in the future.
184. The Tribunal accepts that the fourth named applicant fears that he may be kidnapped if he returns to Pakistan. He has not provided the Tribunal with any country information to support this claim and the Tribunal is unable to find any country information that supports this claim. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that he will be kidnapped if he returns to Pakistan.
185. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the fourth named applicant would be at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Pakistan for reason of his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’.
186. The Tribunal accepts that the fifth named applicant is currently studying for a [Qualification] at TAFE and that he works part-time in a [workplace]. The Tribunal accepts that he has a subjective fear that his life and the lives of his family would be at risk if they return to Pakistan. In view of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his fear is well founded. The Tribunal accepts that he would prefer to study in Australia than in Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts that it would be difficult for him to re-adjust to life in Pakistan after having lived in Australia for several years.
187. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the fifth named applicant would be at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Pakistan for reason of his membership of particular social groups namely ‘returnees from a Western country’ and/or ‘failed asylum seekers’.
188. In view of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants are at risk of serious harm or significant harm from any of the persons or organizations claimed for any of the reasons claimed if they return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicants under the Refugees Convention?
189. Having considered all of the first named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that he will suffer serious harm for reason of his actual or implied political opinion, membership of a particular social group or any other reason under the Refugees Convention if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason and is not a refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
190. Having considered all of the second named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that she will suffer serious harm for reason of her actual or implied political opinion, membership of a particular social group or any other reason under the Refugees Convention if she returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that she does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason and is not a refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that she does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
191. Having considered all of the third named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that he will suffer serious harm for reason of his actual or implied political opinion, membership of a particular social group or any other reason under the Refugees Convention if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason and is not a refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
192. Having considered all of the fourth named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that he will suffer serious harm for reason of his actual or implied political opinion, membership of a particular social group or any other reason under the Refugees Convention if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason and is not a refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
193. Having considered all of the fifth named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that he will suffer serious harm for reason of his actual or implied political opinion, membership of a particular social group or any other reason under the Refugees Convention if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason and is not a refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicants under the complementary     protection criterion?
194. As the Tribunal has found that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether they may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of Protection visas pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.
195. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if they return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
196. Having considered all of the first named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
197. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
198. Having considered all of the second named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on her, she will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or she will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if she returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
199. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the second named applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that she does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
200. Having considered all of the third named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
201. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the third named applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
202. Having considered all of the fourth named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
203. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the fourth named applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
204. Having considered all of the fifth named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
205. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the fifth named applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
206. The Tribunal finds that the applicants do not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
207. There is no suggestion that the applicants satisfy s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
208.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Linda Symons
Member

[2018] AATA 5970

3 December 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing