1600578 (Refugee)

The Tribunal considered the application of a married man from Pakistan, along with his wife and children, for protection visas. The applicant claimed he was from a wealthy family involved in businesses in Multan and had experienced serious incidents of extortion, kidnapping, and threats, including a personal kidnapping and ransom demand, and subsequent threats to his children. He asserted that due to these events, his and his family's lives were in danger, making it impossible for him to return to Pakistan.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Refugee Convention* (s.36(2)(a) of the Act) or under the complementary protection provisions (s.36(2)(aa) of the Act). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Pakistan. The Tribunal also considered the general security situation in Pakistan and whether any risk faced by the applicant was directed at him for a Convention-based reason.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Pakistan faces security threats, the overall security situation, particularly in Khyber Paktunkhwa, had significantly improved since 2014 due to counter-terrorism operations, leading to a substantial reduction in sectarian and terrorist attacks. Although acknowledging some significant security incidents in 2015 and 2016, the Tribunal noted that the targets of these attacks were generally security forces, law enforcement, or specific sectarian or minority groups, none of which the applicant appeared to belong to. The Tribunal found that to the extent the applicant faced harm from generalised violence, it was not directed at him for a Convention-based reason, and therefore did not fall within the refugee criteria. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm for reasons of his language or ethnic background, or as a businessman vulnerable to extortion. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion. Applying similar reasoning regarding the improved security situation and the general nature of violence, the Tribunal also found that there was no real risk of significant harm as defined by the complementary protection provisions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under either the refugee or complementary protection provisions of the Act.