1600747 (Refugee)

1600747 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 495 (6 February 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1600747
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan
MEMBER:C. Packer
DATE:6 February 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 06 February 2018 at 6:36pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Pakistan – Fear of harm – Attack by the Taliban – Political opinion – Awami National Party member – Social group – Human rights activists in Swat – Family members killed by the Taliban – Real chance of serious harm in his home area – Relocation elsewhere in Pakistan possible – Vulnerable witness – Mental health condition
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 91R, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
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 (the delegate) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant is a man [age], born in Pakistan and a citizen of Pakistan.
The applicant arrived in Australia on [date] February 2014, as a holder of a Student visa, and had travelled on a Pakistan passport issued on [date] 2013 and valid to [date] 2023.
On [date] April 2014 the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa.
On [date] October 2015 the applicant attended an interview with the delegate.
On [date] January 2016 the delegate refused the application under s.65 of the Act.
On 22 January 2016 the applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision.
On 22 June 2017 the applicant attended a Tribunal hearing.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether the applicant is entitled to complementary protection. A summary of the relevant law is set out in Attachment A.
The applicant’s narrative is centred on his activities and profile in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, and in particular in Swat and Peshawar, from 2008 to 2013 that attracted the adverse attention of militants. This included his membership and activities in the Awami National Party (ANP) and its student wing; activities with the Pakistan International Human Rights Organisation; performing village night patrols and other activities organised by the local Village Defence Committee; informing against talibs to the Pakistan Army that he claims led to their deaths; and being associated with his uncles who had ANP political and anti-Taliban profiles. After considering his evidence and the material before the Tribunal, I accept that he faces a real chance of serious harm in his home area in the province. However, I find that he can reasonably relocate elsewhere in Pakistan where he would not face a real chance of serious harm for a Convention reason, and where there would not be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. My assessment follows.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, FINDINGS
Background
The applicant’s protection visa application provided some basic background information, and the applicant supplemented this with further details at the hearing. In the application, the applicant stated that he was born and raised in [Village 1] in Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. He stated he is single, a Sunni Muslim, and a Pashtun. He stated in Pakistan he had his mother and [sisters], and his father and [brothers] were in [Country 1]. He stated that in 2012 he attained a [qualication] in [a certain discipline] and had been a [occupation] at a [Organisation 1] in Swat in 2013. At the hearing the applicant said his father had returned to live in the family home in Swat. He said that in Australia he lives in a share house and has worked part-time and casually. He said he has ongoing mental health issues.
Country information[1] shows that Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world with a population estimated to be around 193 million. Pakistan’s population is young, fast-growing, and rapidly urbanising. Pakistan is a Federal Islamic Republic comprising four provinces (Balochistan, Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and two autonomous regions, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The FATA is comprised of 7 tribal agencies: Bajaur; Khyber; Kurram; Orakzai; Mohmand; North Waziristan and South Waziristan. Approximately half the population of Pakistan lives in Punjab province, with around 27 per cent living in Sindh, 13 per cent in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and six per cent in Balochistan. Less than five per cent of the population lives in the FATA and the Northern Areas of Pakistan collectively. Pakistan is ethnically and linguistically diverse with the largest linguistic groups being Punjabis (45%), Pashtuns (15%), Sindhis (14%), Seraikis (8%) and Mohajir (7.5%).
[1] The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report: DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 1 September 2017, [ of claims
The applicant claims to fear persecution in Pakistan from the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the Taliban). His key claims as summarised are:
·He was born and raised in [Village 1] in Swat, and is a Pashtun.
·During his tertiary studies at [university] from [date] to [date] he had been a member of the ANP’s student wing Pukhtoon Student Federation (PSF), and there he was [an office bearer] from late [date] to late [date].
·While at University he became active with the Pakistan International Human Rights Organisation (PIHRO) including humanitarian activities in Swat.
·He actively supported and worked for the ANP with a focus on the elections in February 2008 and May 2013, and he associated with his [Uncle A] and other [relatives] who were strong ANP members.
·In early 2008 in Swat he had an altercation with followers of the militant cleric [Mr B] when they stole his car, and he was hit with a rifle butt when he complained to the local commander.
·He next complained to the police who were disinterested, and that night the Taliban took the family out of the family house and bombed it, and beat him. To support the claim he provided photos and a receipt for assistance from the Pakistan government for a rebuild.
·In early 2008 [Uncle A] was involved in convening a meeting in [Village 1] of influential local ANP people. A later delegation that went to the party headquarters in Peshawar called for military intervention in Swat, and this ostensibly led to a military operation in Swat in late 2008. The ANP and party members then became a target of [Mr B] and his supporters.
·On [date] March 2009 armed men ransacked the uncle’s house while searching for [Uncle A] and the applicant and this led to an aunt being shot and killed.
·Following the completion of the military Operation Rah-e-Rast in Swat in mid-2009, the applicant returned to [Village 1] when he was able, and he assisted the [Village 1] Defence Committee.
·In June 2011 he witnessed a terrorist bombing in Peshawar and this worsened his mental health.
·On [date] September 2013 he received a threat letter from the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (the Taliban). The letter threatened the applicant and [Uncle A] with death because they were working with the army against the TTP, and were complicit in the killing of two commanders.
·On [date] November 2013 unidentified gunmen killed [Uncle A] in Karachi.
·The father continues to receive phone calls from unknown men who ask after the applicant.
·He faces harm because he is a Pashtun and from Swat.
In submissions the applicant claims he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan arising from:
·Political opinion: He fears the Taliban (TTP) will harm him because of his political opinion, actual or imputed, as an opponent of that group and its aims and as he is pro-military and pro-government. This arises from his ANP membership; actual support of the Village Defence Committee; anti-Taliban opinion; pro-Western opinion informed by his human rights and aid work.
·He fears the Taliban (TTP) will harm him because of his Membership of a particular social group, of:
oSecular residents in Swat
oProponents of the ANP in Swat
oProponents of development/foreign aid in Swat
oHuman rights activists in Swat
oReturnees from a Western country
Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following material:
·The applicant’s Protection visa application form lodged on [date] April 2014, which includes a statement that gives reasons for seeking protection in Australia
·Passport pages
·Identity documents including a Pakistan National ID card, the applicant’s Family IDP camp registration documents; UNHCR ration cards; photos of damaged house; family identity documents
·Pakistan International Human Rights Organisation (PIHRO)- membership certificate and other certificates
·Awami National Party (ANP) membership card; ANP letter of support dated [January] 2015; letter of support by an ANP general secretary dated [June] 2017
·Documents concerning [Uncle A] and his death in Karachi
·Submission of 9 November 2015
·Psychologist reports dated [November] 2015 and [July] 2017, and a prescription
·The Protection visa decision record (‘delegate’s decision’) dated [January] 2016, which is the subject of this review
·The application for review, which has attached to it a copy of the delegate’s decision
·Statement dated [June] 2017
·Submissions of 19 June and 27 July 2017 and other short post-hearing submissions, and country information, that I have fully considered
·Statement by Chairman of the Village Defence Committee in [Village 1], Swat dated [June] 2017
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments, on [date] June 2017. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an accredited interpreter in the Pashto and English languages, even though the applicant has English language skills. The applicant stated he understood the interpreter, and during the hearing he did not tell me he had any difficulties with the interpretation. A few times the applicant corrected the interpretation into English and at times answered questions in English.
In his statement dated [June] 2017 he spoke of having mental health issues and said he had consulted with a psychologist since 2015. I therefore considered him to be a vulnerable witness. At the start of the hearing I asked whether he was well and able to talk about his story, and he stated he was. During the hearing he appeared to fully understand questions and he gave coherent answers and explanations. I assess that he was competent to give evidence and had a full opportunity to put forward his story and arguments.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report: DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 1 September 2017, was published after the hearing. This report replaces and essentially updates the previous DFAT Pakistan Country Information Report and the DFAT Thematic Report on Shi’a in Pakistan (both released on 15 January 2016) that formed the basis for discussion at the hearing. The Tribunal brought the applicant’s attention to the later report in a letter dated 12 December 2017. The letter also extracted parts of the report and indicated they may be of particular interest, as well as citations for regular reports by other organisations, and information concerning the [professional licence]. A submission dated 19 December 2017 commented on the country information and information about [professional] licenses and provided additional arguments.
The Department had not issued a certificate under s438 of the Act.
Assessment of claims: credibility
The applicant claims to be a national of Pakistan. I sighted his Pakistan passport at the hearing and partial photocopies were made. All the available evidence, including the applicant’s oral evidence and familiarity with Pakistan, supports his claim to be a Pakistan national. Pakistan is therefore the country of reference for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s protection claims, and the receiving country when assessing his claims against the complementary protection grounds.
Having considered the material before the Tribunal including the applicant’s evidence given at the hearing, I accept he has the claimed identity: [applicant’s name] born on [date]. I accept he is a Pashtun and a Sunni Muslim. I accept he was born and raised in [Village 1], Swat and later lived and studied in Peshawar. I accept he has family members in Swat and in [Country 1].
His mental health
A Psychology report dated 5 November 2015 [has] key points:
·The applicant was referred in October 2014 due to stress and depression. He attended about 8 sessions to September 2015.
·He spoke to the psychologist about his experiences with the Taliban in Swat. The report gave the opinion the applicant was a genuine refugee who had been targeted by the Taliban.
·He had many symptoms of PTSD.
·He made progress with a variety of therapies, and “now he is very much continuing to improve socially and is now engaged in light work”.
The applicant’s statement dated [June] 2017 discussed his mental health, with key points:
·After his uncle was killed he began to have nightmares and could not sleep. He could not do anything without intense fear.
·He consulted with a doctor in Islamabad who prescribed sleeping pills.
·By the time he arrived in Australia his mental state worsened- he became preoccupied with thoughts of what was happening to his family, he still felt unsafe, and had nightmares.
·In November 2014 he commenced consulting a [psychologist], and in 2015 he was referred to another [psychologist]. He sees her as often as he can. He has been prescribed medication.
·He has difficulties sleeping and worries about being sent home, and how he would be killed. His mental health is such that he had not been able to keep a stable job, and he is not good for any work. He has lost a couple of jobs because supervisors said he could not concentrate.
I noted that at the hearing he presented well: he appeared attentive and articulate and he listened to questions and gave comprehensive answers, and during our discussion appeared to well remember each element of his narrative including dates. When I asked about his mental health the applicant said he attended one or two counselling sessions in a month. He said he had obtained a [professional licence] by completing a two or three week course and passing the test and his mental health had not affected the licence. He said he gave up [his role] after one year as that work at night disturbed him, and he had also been disturbed when his parents told him that talibs were searching for him. He discussed his ongoing work. He said that the psychological report he was seeking had been delayed due to her personal issues.
A Psychological report dated [July] 2017 ([the second psychologist]) has key points:
·For the management of depression, anxiety, PTSD, panic attacks and insomnia, the applicant had attended counselling sessions in 2014 (1 session), 2015 (7), 2016 (3), and 2017 (11).
·For the past three years he has lived in share accommodation with other Pakistani students. He had worked part-time [in various roles], and now works 3-4 days per week [in a certain role].
·He is diagnosed with PTSD, generalised anxiety disorder, panic and depressive disorders, and insomnia, for which he takes medication. The report discussed each disorder.
·He spoke to the psychologist about his experiences that involved physical and psychological injury: twice being struck on the head with a rifle butt in 2008; witnessing explosions in the streets and market places in Pakistan; and the deaths of an uncle and aunt. The report concluded his psychological conditions are consistent with those of a person with his reported history.
·A conclusion that he requires weekly sessions of psychological counselling and therapies. Such treatments over a long time would assist him to overcome “the impact of his very negative emotional salience that has been generated by the extreme fear and psychological trauma that he has experienced”. He requires ongoing psychological treatment and support to help him manage his sadness, stress, anxiety and depression, to help increase his level of social, emotional and behavioural functioning, and to help improve his mood management skills.
·An opinion that in Pakistan his current mental health problems would significantly worsen. “The extreme anxiety that he is currently suffering would become so extreme that there is a strong possibility that he could potentially ‘shut down’ mentally and become catatonic with fear.” If he relocated without the support of family networks and friends and “where there is general insecurity” he would also suffer psychologically. These factors would have a negative effect on his ability to manage himself effectively on a day-to-day basis with regard to his emotional functioning, his occupational functioning, his ability to find work, his interpersonal skills and social functioning.
·He remains extremely distressed, very fearful, and overwhelmingly convinced that a return to Pakistan will end his life.
A submission dated 19 December 2017 discussed how the applicant obtained his [professional licence]: “[he] made the regrettable decision to leave mention of his psychiatric treatment off his application for a [professional licence].” The submission indicated the applicant sought to qualify for the licence as he had been anxious to ensure he was continuously employed and had ongoing employment.
In sum, I have given appropriate weight to the expert reports. Based on the reports and in particular the report of [date] July 2017 together with the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, I accept that the applicant has those psychological problems. Based on all the material I acknowledge that his psychological problems have been/are attributable to past life experiences, depression, concern for his family in Pakistan, his social isolation and unsettled circumstances, and his unresolved migration status.
In Australia the applicant has received treatment for his psychological problems that includes medication. He had eight counselling sessions up to the time of the delegate’s interview in October 2015 and was reported to have made progress with a variety of therapies. In the year after the delegate’s decision in January 2016 the applicant had few counselling sessions, but these increased in 2017 and as he said at the hearing he has one or two each month.
The most recent prognosis is that he will require treatment into the future. The expert report of [date] July 2017 gives the prognosis that ‘over a long period time’ the applicant will need ongoing counselling and therapy and indicated these would include therapies for: relaxation; systematic desensitization; cognitive behaviour; acceptance and commitment; and attention control.
The applicant’s psychological problems are reported to have affected him socially, although by late 2015 it was reported that “now he is very much continuing to improve socially and is now engaged in light work”. The expert report of [date] July 2017 detailed his social problems but also spoke of his domestic life living in shared accommodation with other Pakistani students, and the submission of 19 December 2017 referred to the applicant hearing about an employment opportunity through the Swati community in [Australian city 1] and how he went through the steps to obtain the [professional licence] ‘as his friends had suggested’. The references to his life here show that despite his ongoing social problems, he has been able to get accommodation with other Pakistanis, associates with people in the Swati community, and has developed friendships.

The applicant says that his mental health is such that he had not been able to keep a stable job, and he is not good for any work, and he has lost a couple of jobs because supervisors said he could not concentrate.[2] But despite these difficulties, he also submits that he sought a [professional licence] and work because he has been anxious to ensure he was continuously employed and had ongoing employment.[3] In submissions and at the hearing he spoke about his paid employment in Australia in [various areas]. While he says that his psychological problems led him to discontinue the [work] after a year, and while his work in Australia has been at a low skill level and not in the field of his qualifications and experience in Pakistan, over the past four years he has been able to find work including work that required a licence, sufficient to pay his way in Australia. I find the applicant’s psychological problems and treatment have not prevented or significantly hindered him from establishing himself in Australia and financially supporting himself over several years.
[2] Statement of [June] 2017
[3] Submission of 19 December 2017
As well, I have considered the most recent expert opinion about the effects on the applicant should he return to Pakistan and I note that particular emphasis is given to his stated subjective fear of harm in Pakistan such that there is a strong possibility that he could potentially ‘shut down’ mentally. The expert also gave the opinion that if he relocated without the support of family networks and friends and “where there is general insecurity” he would also suffer psychologically. I have given consideration to this opinion in my later discussion and findings.
His political activities with the ANP
A main element of the applicant’s narrative is his political connections with the ANP in Pakistan. Based on the material provided by the applicant as well as his evidence at the hearing I find that:
·He had a long-standing interest in the ANP and its activities because of his uncles in Swat who were ANP activists. While he did not officially join the ANP he was always considered to be a member and he did join the student wing.
·He was active in the 2008 Pakistan election [campaign]. Nonetheless, his importance as a local campaigner would have been lessened by his young age at the [time].
·While at [university] from [date] to [date] he had been a member of the ANP’s student wing, the Pakhtun Students’ Federation (PSF), and was [an office bearer] there for a [year]. His description of the activities and tasks in the student wing show that they were mainly on campus and concerned local students with occasional charitable work such as blood donations. Indeed, as he said[4], the PSF did not really do political work on campus other than to coordinate numbers to attend local ANP rallies, and the student wing was more geared to resolving student issues.
·He was an ‘active member’ in the campaign for the May 2013 Pakistan election and his party activities were not hidden.[5]
[4] Statement of [June] 2017, paragraph 40
[5] Letter of support dated [June] 2017 from [a] former Member of Parliament and ANP [official]
In sum, I accept the applicant had for many years been an active ANP supporter/member and indeed as country information[6] shows, between 2008 and 2013 the ANP governed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and was a junior partner in the federal coalition government with the Pakistan People’s Party. Nonetheless, his party activities in Peshawar had been at a student level and mainly on campus involving students, and would not have created a significant political profile beyond the campus. His party activities in Swat had been restricted by his residence and study for long periods in Peshawar, but would have increased after he finished his studies there and returned to Swat in 2013. Nonetheless, he did not hold a party position in Swat and his political profile- gained through being very well known to the local MP, and being popular amongst local members, and being actively involved in election campaigns and party meetings there[7]- would not have created a significant political profile beyond his home area and Swat. As well, I accept that the ANP had been aware of the threats made to him at the time because of his party affiliation.
He is a member of the Pakistan International Human Rights Organisation
[6] September 2017 DFAT report
[7] Letter of support dated [January] 2015 from [an] ANP [official] in District Swat
After considering the material before the Tribunal including the applicant’s evidence at the hearing I accept he was involved with the PIHRO in his province. At the hearing he discussed the humanitarian work he did in Swat such as distributing goods to schools and how they worked with women, under army protection, and this attracted the Taliban’s adverse attention. In his statement of [date] June 2017 he described how he assisted the organisation’s humanitarian work in [Village 1] particularly following the military operation in May 2009 and it was through these trips back to [Village 1] that people came to know that he was working with the organisation. Nonetheless, he was never harmed during his humanitarian activities that were largely centred on [Village 1] and they would not have created a significant profile as a humanitarian worker beyond his home area and Swat.
The Taliban bomb the family home in early 2008
In the applicant’s narrative in early 2008 he had an altercation with talibs including the village Taliban Commander after his vehicle was stolen, and because he then filed a complaint with the police, the Taliban responded by bombing the house that night after they took the family outside. To support the claim he provided photos and a receipt for assistance from the Pakistan government for a rebuild. Country information[8] shows that from late 2007 the Taliban were seeking to dominate Swat and so I cannot discount the possibility that the applicant had a violent altercation with talibs about his stolen car in early 2008 as he claims.
[8] Article in Combating Terrorism Center dated 31 October 2011, Evaluating Pakistan’s Offensives in Swat and FATA, [>
However, as I pointed out at the hearing, his claim that he complained to the police about the Taliban stealing his car was not convincing in light of the country information that shows the Taliban/[Mr B]’s supporters dominated Swat at the time and the police had been sidelined by the talibs and were well-known to be ineffectual. As well, I have strong concerns with his narrative about talibs bombing the family house in reprisals. As I pointed out at the hearing, the photos show a damaged house but not necessarily damage through the cause he claims. Indeed, the photos that show structural damage to the house in fact show a large hole in the wall next to the ceiling, and outside, a corrugated iron sheet hanging from the roof. As I also pointed out, it is unlikely that the government recompensed the family for damage caused in the way he claims, but I acknowledged the government did pay compensation for damage caused to buildings during a military operation, and as I had discussed in the hearing there had been a number of military operations[9] against the militants in Swat in this period including Rah-e-Haq I conducted in November-December 2007 in Swat largely against [Mr B] and his supporters, Rah-e-Haq II launched in July 2008, followed by Rah-e-Haq III from January 2009 until the Government announced a cease-fire on 16 February 2009. The applicant responded that had the damage been caused during a military operation there would have been bullet holes in walls. However, I do not accept that the only damage caused by the military during the operations in Swat was caused during gun fights.
[9] ibid
In sum, I accept that the applicant had been assaulted and hit with a gun butt during altercations with talibs in early 2008, but I do not accept that he made a formal complaint to the police or that the family home had been bombed by talibs in reprisal for him going to the police. I accept the house had been damaged at some time, but not in the circumstances described by the applicant.
The local party response to [Mr B]
In the applicant’s narrative[10], the applicant’s [Uncle A] was a well-connected ANP member and in early 2008 [Uncle A] convened in his [Village 1] guest house an emergency meeting of influential local people and the local ANP MPA to seek justice for the family and to address what was happening in the area. The meeting decided that a party delegation should approach the party headquarters in Peshawar. At the same time, similar meetings were held by other ANP leaders and supporters in nearby areas, and the delegation that later went to Peshawar included many party people from a number of areas. The delegation called for military intervention to end militarism in Swat and this was raised all the way to the President, and ultimately the Pakistan army commenced a military operation in Swat in late 2008. From the time that the meeting of the Chief Minister and the President was announced, [Mr B] and supporters made a series of radio announcements over many months that blamed the ANP for the military operation.
[10] Set out in detail in his statement of [June] 2017 at paragraphs 62 to 68
At the hearing I discussed my concerns that it appeared [Uncle A] in fact resided in Karachi. Documents produced by the applicant to evidence the uncle’s death (Heirship certificate and Death certificate) show that [Uncle A] and wife had been resident in Karachi, and the uncle’s National Identity card issued [date] 2002 shows a ‘current address’ in Karachi and a ‘permanent address’ in [Village 1]. At the hearing the applicant stated that [Uncle A] had long operated a business in [Karachi]. As I pointed out, it would have been difficult to operate the Karachi business from the distant village. The applicant responded that other uncles who also lived in Karachi helped [Uncle A] with the business and in the hot season [Uncle A] returned and so he spent 50% of his time in Swat, and [Uncle A] was active in the ANP in both Swat and Karachi. In sum, despite my residual concerns I cannot discount the possibility that [Uncle A] kept a house in [Village 1] and spent half his time there. I accept, therefore, that [Uncle A] hosted a party meeting of influential local people in [Village 1] in early 2008 and I accept that he became a particular target of the local Taliban that included [Mr B] and supporters, as did other influential party people. I accept that [Mr B] and supporters made a series of radio announcements over many months that blamed the ANP for the military operation.
However, while the applicant was a member of the ANP’s student wing in [date], his activities were centred on Peshawar. He did not hold a party position, and while he was said to be active in the party he was also studying at a University in Peshawar and so ostensibly had less time to be politically active in Swat. Indeed, he only visited home in secret because, as he said at the hearing, after the occurrence in about March 2008 when the talibs took his car he would take a bus from Peshawar to Swat and then get a taxi to the family home in the dark so that people would not see him. In sum, I find that the applicant was not considered by the militants to have co-hosted the party meeting, nor did the militants consider he had been instrumental in the political decisions taken against the TTP such that he was personally denounced on radio. I find the applicant was not considered to be an influential party member but I accept that because of his earlier party activities, together with the family connection with [Uncle A] and other uncles, the local talibs imputed him to be anti-Taliban.
An aunt is killed in March 2009
In the applicant’s narrative on [date] March 2009 the Taliban ransacked the house in Swat while searching for the uncle and the applicant, and during an altercation an aunt was shot and killed. At the time in early 2009 the militants were dominating Swat and had an adverse interest in ANP members and so I cannot discount the possibility that the aunt had been killed during a militant search of the house as they were looking for family members including the applicant whom they knew to be ANP supporters.
He witnesses a bomb blast in Peshawar
The applicant’s claim that in June 2011 he witnessed a terrorist bombing in Peshawar and this worsened his mental health, is consistent with country information and I accept it.
The Village Defence Committee and the Taliban threat letter
In the applicant’s narrative, when the military Operation Rah-e-Rast commenced in Swat in May 2009 he asked his family members to come to Peshawar and they stayed in a refuge there. He provided Internally Displaced People (IDP) registration and UNHCR documents to support this. He claims to have then taken the family back to Swat in August 2009 after the successful military operation had concluded. Country information[11] shows that by August 2009 over 1.5 million Swat residents had returned to Swat following the military offensive which supports his narrative of having taken the family back at that time. In sum, I accept that he returned his family from an IDP camp to the village in August 2009.
[11] Article in the Independent, 29 August 2009, Pakistan suicide bomber training camp destroyed, [>
The applicant provided a letter dated [June] 2017 from the Chairman of [Village 1]’s VDC, and the key points of the letter are that the applicant and [Uncle A] worked with the VDC and he would be targeted by the Taliban if he was in Pakistan. Based on the material before the Tribunal including the applicant’s evidence at the hearing I accept that during those periods when he was in [Village 1], he performed some tasks for the [Village 1] Defence Committee (VDC) set up by the Pakistan army in August 2009. This is supported by country information that shows in late 2009 Village Defence Committees were established throughout Swat and other regions and many men performed tasks for them. Nonetheless, while he says that although he was studying in Peshawar he would return to [Village 1] ‘weekly, if not more often’ and for holidays, nevertheless up to 2012 he was away from [Village 1] for long periods when he did not perform tasks for the VDC.
The applicant’s role in the VDC was not at a high level. He states that he did not hold a leadership role in the VDC as those leadership roles had been held by very respected elders who had been members of the tribal Islahi committee/Jirga in [Village 1].[12] And his description of the activities he undertook with the VDC- doing night watch under army supervision; identifying the homes of talibs to the army and informing; advising villagers of army curfews; registering villagers with the army- show they were at a lower level and local and widely performed by a large number of villagers. Indeed, at the hearing the applicant described how just in his neighbourhood in [Village 1] [each] household had been required by the army to provide a male member to do night watch, and in his statement he said they were all responsible for identifying talib homes to the army.
[12] His statement of [June] 2017 at paragraphs 77 to 83
In the applicant’s narrative, [Uncle A] and he subsequently received a TTP death threat in a letter dated [September] 2013. He has not produced a copy of the letter. At the hearing I expressed my doubts that the Taliban warned him in this way as it merely enabled [Uncle A] and him to flee the area. He responded that the Taliban procedure was to send a letter and then kill and claim responsibility, and he thinks that the Taliban send letters to all the people they are against and indeed he knew of about five VDC members who received a letter as well as ANP members. He claims the Taliban letter stated that he and [Uncle A] were working against the TTP with the army and were complicit in the killing of two commanders that included [Mr C].[13] He claims he had specifically identified talib commander [Mr C]’s home to the army as that talib lived in his neighbourhood, and at the hearing he said revengeful talibs continued to ask after him.
[13] His statement of [June] 2017 at paragraphs 85 and 86
In sum, I cannot discount the possibility that the applicant received a threatening Taliban letter. However, I am not satisfied this letter was any more than a general Taliban threat letter sent to [Uncle A] and him. This is because, firstly, the Taliban had sent threatening letters to all the people they were against and in the applicant’s evidence he knew of many VDC and ANP members who received a letter. As well, Taliban commanders and important leaders in [Village 1] would have been among the most prominent talibs in the area and they would have been identified as talibs by the army through any number of sources, including through villagers who had long been resident in the village and villagers who lived in the village and regularly assisted the VDC and/or were at a higher level in the VDC. In this light, I do not find convincing the applicant’s claim that the Taliban particularly identified him and [Uncle A] as the army informers who had helped the army which led to the deaths of important Taliban leaders. Nor do I accept the claim that flows from this narrative that revengeful talibs had continued to ask after him.
Uncle’s death in Karachi
To support the claimed murder of [Uncle A], the applicant provided a Death certificate, an Heirship certificate, posthumous photos, and a South Asia Terrorism Portal report. Based on the material before the Tribunal I accept the [Uncle A] was murdered in Karachi. However, the reason for the killing is not known as the material provided by the applicant shows the assailant was unidentified.
In the applicant’s narrative, the Taliban killed [Uncle A] because of [Uncle A]’s activities in [Village 1], but while I accept that [Uncle A] lived at times in [Village 1], I also find that his life was centred on Karachi where his wife and family lived and where he operated a large business. As well, at the hearing the applicant’s evidence was that [Uncle A] had been an influential ANP member who had also worked for the ANP in Karachi. In this light, I find it is most likely that [Uncle A] had been killed in Karachi because of his political profile as an influential ANP member and businessman in Karachi.
Conclusion - credibility
In sum, I find that much of the applicant’s narrative concerning his life in Pakistan between 2008 and when he departed in February 2014 is true. His descriptions of events in Swat and Peshawar in that period are broadly supported by country information. I find that from January 2008 to the end of 2012 he was resident in Peshawar where he successfully completed University studies, and at University he was involved with the ANP’s student wing as well as the PIHRO. I accept that during that period he also returned to the village at times largely to see and care for his mother.
However, I consider that in his narrative he has embellished some of the occurrences in Swat, and embellished the level and importance of his ANP party activities in Swat. This is because he was living away from Swat for much of the time from 2008 to 2012, and he never held a position in the party in Swat. The importance of his party activities for the February 2008 election would have been limited to some extent by his youth and his move to Peshawar in January 2008. In 2013 he had moved back to Swat where he worked at the [Organisation 1] and so had greater opportunity to undertake party activities during the campaign for the May 2013 election.
I accept that he had a violent altercation with talibs in early 2008 but consider he embellished this occurrence with the claim that the family home had been bombed by talibs in a reprisal for his actions. Regardless, this appears to have been an isolated occurrence as his evidence is that it did not prevent him from returning to the village where afterwards he continued to visit his mother albeit, he said at the hearing, in secret.

I accept that [Uncle A] hosted an important local party meeting in Swat in early 2008, and that following the army’s involvement in Swat the Taliban denounced the ANP. I accept that in [Village 1], both [Uncle A]’s profile as an influential ANP member and the applicant’s profile as an ANP member with family links to [Uncle A], were generally known to the local community. However, I do not accept the applicant was considered by the militants to have co-hosted the meeting or that they considered he had been instrumental in the political decisions taken against the TTP such that he was personally denounced on radio.
I accept that at the height of the insurgency in March 2009 the Taliban searched for family members including the applicant who were known to be ANP members and during the search an aunt was shot and killed.
After the military operation I accept the applicant returned the family to the village and re-settled the family there, before returning to Peshawar to continue his studies. I accept that during those periods when he was in [Village 1], he performed some tasks for the [Village 1] VDC but I find those tasks had been performed by many villagers at the time and his role in the VDC was not at a high level. I accept he received a threatening Taliban letter but find this letter was no more than a general Taliban threat letter sent to [Uncle A] and him. I do not accept that the Taliban particularly identified him and [Uncle A] as the army informers who had helped the army which led to the deaths of important Taliban leaders or that revengeful talibs had continued to ask after him. I find it is most likely that [Uncle A] had been killed in Karachi because of his political profile in Karachi as an influential ANP member and Karachi businessman.
Having considered the claims and evidence, I accept his claims that:
·He was born and raised in [Village 1] in Swat, and is a Pashtun. I have considered his claim to face harm because he is a Pashtun and from Swat in discussion that follows.
·During his tertiary studies at [university] from [date] to [date] he had been a member of the ANP’s student wing Pukhtoon Student Federation (PSF), and there he was [an office bearer] from late [date] to late [date].
·While at University he became active with the Pakistan International Human Rights Organisation (PIHRO) including humanitarian activities in Swat.
·He actively supported and worked for the ANP with a focus on the elections in February 2008 and May 2013, and he associated with his maternal [Uncle A] and other paternal relatives who were strong ANP members.
·In early 2008 in Swat he had an altercation with followers of the militant cleric [Mr B] when they stole his car, and he was hit with a rifle butt when he complained to the local commander.
·In early 2008 [Uncle A] was involved in convening a meeting in [Village 1] of influential local ANP people. A later delegation that went to the party headquarters in Peshawar called for military intervention in Swat, and this ostensibly led to a military operation in Swat in late 2008. The ANP and party members then became a target of [Mr B] and his supporters.
·On [date] March 2009 armed men ransacked the uncle’s house while searching for [Uncle A] and the applicant and this led to an aunt being shot and killed.
·Following the completion of the military Operation Rah-e-Rast in Swat in mid-2009, the applicant returned to [Village 1] when he was able, and he assisted the [Village 1] Village Defence Committee.
·In June 2011 he witnessed a terrorist bombing in Peshawar and this worsened his mental health.
·On [date] September 2013 he received a threat letter from the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (the Taliban). The letter threatened the applicant and [Uncle A] with death because they were working with the army against the TTP.
·On [date] November 2013 unidentified gunmen killed [Uncle A] in Karachi.
Having considered the claims and evidence, I do not accept his claims that:
·He filed a complaint with the police about his stolen car in early 2008 and that night the Taliban took the family out of the family house and bombed it, and beat him.
·The applicant was considered by the militants to have co-hosted the 2013 meeting or that they considered he had been instrumental in the political decisions taken against the TTP such that he was personally denounced on radio.
·The Taliban letter threatened the applicant with death because they considered he was complicit in the killing of two commanders that included [Mr C].
·Revengeful talibs still seek him, and the father continues to receive phone calls from unknown men who ask after the applicant.
Conclusion
Having considered the claims and evidence I find that the applicant is a Pakistan national. He is a mature, single Muslim Sunni and a Pashtun from an affluent family in [Village 1], Swat, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. His parents continue to live in the village. I find he is well educated having completed a [qualification] in [a certain discipline]. He arrived in Australia on a Student visa on [date] February 2014 and he has now been here for four years.
As I accept that the applicant previously came to the adverse attention of the Taliban as evidenced by the Taliban threat letter he received in Swat on [date] September 2013, I cannot discount the possibility that the Taliban in his home area may become aware he has returned and will seek to harm him. In light of my foregoing findings I consider that the Taliban’s adverse interest in him in [Village 1] arose largely because of his past political profile as an ANP activist who had assisted the VDC and his family connection to [Uncle A] who at the time had been an influential ANP member. Country information shows the Taliban and other militants have the capacity to undertake targeted killings in Swat of people they have an adverse interest in. I therefore accept that if he returns to the family home in Swat in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is more than a remote chance that the applicant will again attract the adverse attention of the Taliban and face serious harm amounting to persecution.
I next considered whether the applicant could reasonably relocate to another area of Pakistan where he would not face a real chance of persecution. Firstly, I am satisfied the applicant will be able to travel to and enter Pakistan. This is because he is a Pakistan national who last departed Pakistan legally with a genuine Pakistan passport valid to [date] 2023 that he still holds.
At the hearing, I discussed the security and social conditions in Pakistan’s major cities but focussed on Islamabad with a population over two million and Lahore with over ten million. As discussed at the hearing, I consider Islamabad and Lahore are viable areas for the applicant to relocate to because they are in Punjab and a significant distance from [Village 1] and Swat, and are large cities that have ethnically-diverse populations and ostensibly offer a level of anonymity for the applicant. While my discussion referenced the earlier DFAT report, the September 2017 DFAT report broadly shows that those cities continue to be viable areas for relocation:
5.14     Large urban centres such as Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore tend to have ethnically- and religiously-diverse populations, and offer a level of anonymity for people seeking refuge from violence by non-state actors. However, groups such as the Ahmadis, who face significant levels of official discrimination, face similar issues in all parts of the country.
5.15     Lahore has a population of around 10 million people. While it remains a majority-Punjabi city, there are significant numbers of some other ethnic groups, particularly Pashtuns. There are few Hazaras or Turis in Lahore. While security incidents can occur- such as the 2016 Easter Sunday attack- the security situation in Lahore tends to be better than other areas. Representatives of the Pashtun community told DFAT that Lahore was safer for Pashtuns than other parts of the country. Similarly, representatives of the Shi’a community told DFAT that Lahore and Islamabad were the safest parts of the country for Shi’a. Representatives of the Lahore Christian community told DFAT that the security situation has improved and that the government is genuine in its attempts to provide Christians with state protection, although some risks- particularly of communal violence and societal discrimination- remain.
5.16     Islamabad has a population of around two million people, including a large number of internal migrants from all parts of the country. There is a strong security presence, including checkpoints throughout the city and its entry points, and patrols by the paramilitary Rangers. These security measures provide a strong deterrent to militant groups planning attacks in the capital, and large-scale militant or sectarian attacks in Islamabad are rare. Such violence more often takes the form of targeted killings (such as drive-by shootings) of high-profile community leaders.
When the applicant enters Pakistan I am satisfied he will not face a real chance of harm from the Pakistan authorities. As discussed at the hearing, this is because he departed Pakistan legally on his Pakistan passport and has not committed any Pakistani immigration offences. And as discussed, country information shows that while he would return to Pakistan as a returnee from the West and as a failed asylum seeker who had sought Australia’s protection, this would not lead him to face a real chance of harm. My discussion at the hearing drew on the January 2016 DFAT report, and subsequently the September 2017 DFAT report does not raise new issues with regards to his profile on returning to Pakistan as a returnee who had sought Australia’s protection:
5.19 In practice, returnees tend to leave Pakistan on valid travel documents and therefore tend not to commit Pakistani immigration offences. Those who return voluntarily and with valid travel documentation are typically processed like any other citizen returning to Pakistan. Only those who are returned involuntarily or are travelling on emergency travel documents are likely to attract attention from the authorities upon arrival.
5.20 DFAT understands that those returned to Pakistan involuntarily are typically questioned upon arrival to ascertain whether they left the country illegally, are wanted for crimes in Pakistan, or have committed any offences while abroad. Those who left Pakistan on valid travel documentation and have not committed any other crimes are typically released within a couple of hours. Those found to have contravened Pakistani immigration laws are typically arrested and detained. These people tend to be released within a few days, either having been bailed by their families or having paid a fine, although there are provisions for jail sentences. Those wanted for a crime in Pakistan or who have committed a serious offence while abroad may be arrested and held on remand, or required to report regularly to police as a form of parole.
DFAT assesses that returnees to Pakistan do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination as a result of their attempt to migrate, or because of having lived in a western country. [5.21]
In sum, should the applicant return voluntarily to Pakistan he will typically be processed like any other returning citizen. Should he be returned involuntarily the Pakistan authorities will be aware he is a returnee who had attempted to migrate to Australia, but in light of the country information I do not accept that he will attract the adverse interest of the Pakistan authorities beyond being questioned and soon released.
I find there is not a real chance the applicant will face harm in Islamabad or Lahore because of being a returnee (whether or not voluntary) who had attempted to migrate and was a failed asylum seeker from a western country. This is because there is no material before the Tribunal that shows the applicant’s four year stay in Australia has westernized him and his lifestyle to the degree that in Islamabad or Lahore he would come to the adverse attention of people in the community and harmed. He continues to be a practising Sunni and that is the dominant religion in Pakistan. As pointed out at the hearing, country information shows there is a great movement of people in and out of Pakistan and the applicant’s stay in Australia and outside of Pakistan, even if known, would not cause him to be harmed on his return, and indeed, in response the applicant agreed that in Pakistan individuals are not discriminated against because of time spent in the West. My comments drew on the January 2016 DFAT report- and the September 2017 DFAT report does not raise new issues with regards to his profile on returning to Pakistan as a returnee who had lived in the West:
3.139 Western influence is pervasive in many parts of Pakistan, particularly in large urban centres. Western films and music are widely available (though in many cases subject to censorship), and western-branded retail chains operate throughout the country. Both Urdu and English are official languages, and English is taught in many schools and is widely spoken among Pakistan’s elite. Many Pakistanis have relatives in western countries and many more aspire to migrate abroad. Those living abroad return to Pakistan frequently to visit relatives.
3.140 DFAT assesses that individuals in Pakistan are not subject to additional risk of discrimination or violence on the basis of having spent time in western countries or because of perceived western associations (such as clothing), despite a generally increasing conservatism and religiosity across the country.
I next considered security conditions in Islamabad and Lahore. As discussed at the hearing, country information[14] shows Islamabad with its very high level of security has suffered scant militant/sectarian attacks and violence in recent years, and Lahore had suffered militant/sectarian attacks in recent years but these were few. And as pointed out, while there had been militant attacks in Lahore including after the January 2016 DFAT report, the country information shows the attacks had been largely against the authorities such as police and soldiers. Following the hearing, the Tribunal letter dated 12 December 2017 brought to the applicant’s attention the September 2017 DFAT report as well as the monthly summaries of conflicts in Pakistan provided by International Crisis Group CrisisWatch and South Asia Terrorism Portal. These sources continue to support my discussion at the hearing that Islamabad has suffered scant militant/sectarian attacks and violence in recent years, and Lahore has suffered some militant/sectarian attacks in recent years but those have largely been against high profile targets such as police, soldiers, the Assembly.
[14] The monthly summaries of conflicts in Pakistan provided by International Crisis Group CrisisWatch, Pakistan, using filters for country and range of months, [ The summaries of conflicts and events in Pakistan provided by South Asia Terrorism Portal, using filters for country, region, and range of years, [>
I acknowledge that attacks and occurrences may be under reported in any location including in Islamabad and Lahore, and indeed, the September 2017 DFAT report states that statistics of terrorism ‘largely derive from news reports, and may understate the number of casualties’.[15] However, I do not accept that significant personal attacks are not reported in Pakistan where there is a large press that reports such matters, and additionally as discussed at the hearing I have considered other sources[16] that keep detailed regional statistics, deaths and injuries. The reports ostensibly show that detailed regional statistics about terrorist attacks are compiled in Pakistan and while there may be under-reporting of attacks, the reports and statistics from authoritative sources are nonetheless evidence-based and largely accurate.
[15] At 2.33
[16] ibid
The submission of 19 December 2017 submitted that the September 2017 DFAT report is fundamentally circumspect in its assessment of the overall security situation in Pakistan, and quoted the following paragraphs:
2.36 Several interlocutors in Pakistan told DFAT that the underlying conditions for militancy-particularly weak judicial and law enforcement institutions and economic under-development -have not been addressed, and speculated that violence would likely increase again after a period of relative calm.
2.37 DFAT notes that there has been an increase in the frequency and severity of terrorist attacks across Pakistan since late 2016. Between 13 and 16 February 2017, a series of separate incidents in Lahore (Punjab province), Quetta (Balochistan province), Peshawar (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province) and Sehwan (Sindh province) killed at least 100 people and left several hundred others injured. In response to these attacks, on 22 February, 2017, the Pakistan Army announced Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (the successor to Operation Zarb-e-Azb), a nation-wide anti-terrorism operation in accordance with the NAP, which has expanded the role of the army in counter-terrorism operations in Punjab province. Attacks continue to occur, such as a suicide attack targeting police in Lahore on 24 July 2017, which killed 26 people and injured more than 50 others.
The submission of 19 December 2017 then submitted that commentary published in The Diplomat contends that wide-scale attacks on Lahore are likely to continue; and the USA has warned Pakistan that Islamabad may be targeted in the future; and a Shia Imambargah had in fact been attacked in Islamabad in December 2017. The submission argued that “On the basis of the information provided by DFAT, and confirmed by the ongoing occurrence (and predicted increase) of sectarian violence in Pakistan, the Tribunal must accept that the relative stability in the urban capitals is transient.”
However, as discussed at the hearing, I acknowledge that country information shows there are the occasional militant attacks in Lahore and Islamabad. But regardless, as also discussed, country information[17] shows that security in Islamabad has been consistently high for a long time. I also note that the attack highlighted in the submission was an isolated attack[18] against a Shia Imambargh on 29 November 2017, but the applicant is a Sunni Muslim. As discussed at the hearing, Islamabad has very great security provided by police/army throughout the city that discourages militant attacks, and the September 2017 DFAT report does not raise new issues that change this assessment. As well, despite the militant attacks in recent years, country information shows that significant and effective military operations including counter-terrorism operations have been conducted throughout Pakistan and including in Lahore and Islamabad for a number of years. Indeed, the submission also quoted the DFAT report at paragraph 2.37 that “the Pakistan Army announced Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (the successor to Operation Zarb-e-Azb), a nation-wide anti-terrorism operation in accordance with the NAP, which has expanded the role of the army in counter-terrorism operations in Punjab province.” I consider that the reports of military and in particular counter-terrorism operations in Punjab and throughout Pakistan show the Pakistan government and military remain committed to addressing the terrorist problem into the reasonably foreseeable future. In this light I have considered but do not accept the submission that the relative stability in the urban capitals is transient. Additionally, as discussed at the hearing, such wide-scale attacks on Lahore, a city of over ten million, have largely and specifically targeted high profile targets (ie police and army) and the chance that the applicant would be caught up in such an attack is remote. In sum, I find there is not more than a remote chance that the applicant would be harmed in such a militant attack in Lahore or Islamabad now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[17] CrisisWatch, Pakistan; South Asia Terrorism Portal
[18] Firstpost article, Pakistan gunmen kill two in Shia imambargah attack in Islamabad, police start probe, 29 November 2017, [ type="1">
The applicant and representatives have also submitted that his Pashtun ethnicity and/or Pashtun Swati ethnicity and/or Swati origins would lead him to face racial profiling, discrimination and harm in Islamabad and Lahore, and in particular after an explosion in Lahore there had been widespread extra-judicial detention of Pashtuns and then blocking of their IDs. But as discussed at the hearing, I had not seen any material that showed Pashtuns could not reside in Islamabad or Lahore, and the January 2016 DFAT report showed the large Pashtun community in Lahore had said that its members feel safe in Lahore, and the September 2017 DFAT report does not change this broad assessment and states that:
Pashtuns
3.6 The security situation for Pashtuns has improved in line with the general improvement in security across Pakistan. Pashtun-majority areas have traditionally experienced disproportionately high levels of tribal, intra-communal and politically motivated violence, and a high concentration of military operations. However, DFAT assesses that Pashtuns do not face a higher risk of violence than other groups based on their ethnicity. Pashtun community leaders in Lahore told DFAT that Lahore in particular is a safer place for Pashtuns than other parts of the country.
Indeed, other elements of the applicant’s profile such as being a well-educated man who had returned from a Western country would lessen the chance that the Pakistan authorities in Islamabad or Lahore would have an interest in him. And if the applicant came to the attention of the police and other authorities in those cities, he would be able to show them his tertiary education, past political and humanitarian activities with the ANP and PIHRO and their letters of support, and past residence in Australia- and all of these circumstances do not suggest the profile of a suspected terrorist. Regardless, while such possible racial profiling, harassment and difficulties in obtaining ID may amount to discrimination, cumulatively it does not rise to the level of serious harm (or significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection). In sum, I do not accept that the applicant’s Pashtun ethnicity and/or Pashtun Swati ethnicity and/or Swati origins will cause him to face harm in Islamabad or Lahore, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
In my foregoing credibility findings I accept that at the time the applicant departed Pakistan he had gained the Taliban’s adverse attention in [Village 1]. He had first been harmed during a violent altercation with talibs in early 2008. Then by late 2008 the focus of the Taliban/[Mr B]’s followers had turned to the ANP and party members, and in [Village 1] both [Uncle A]’s profile as an influential ANP member and the applicant’s profile as an ANP member with family links to [Uncle A], were generally known to the local community. I accept that at the height of the insurgency in March 2009 the Taliban searched for family members including the applicant who were known to be ANP members and during the search an aunt was shot and killed. I accept that after the successful military campaign in Swat in mid-2009 the applicant continued his political activities and undertook humanitarian activities in Swat, and he also performed some tasks for the [Village 1] VDC. I accept that [Uncle A] was killed in Karachi.
However, firstly, I consider that the political activities the applicant undertook were local and limited in scope and now years in the past. His appointment and work in the PSF was as a student and his tasks were mainly on campus in Peshawar. His work in the ANP was in the main assisting the party locally at elections and he helped an MP who was later killed, but the applicant did not have the higher profile of an ANP office-holder or elected Member.
Secondly, while the family connection with [Uncle A] and perhaps other uncles, together with his personal activities with the ANP/PSF, appear to have brought him to the adverse attention of the local Taliban at the time, [Uncle A] had also been active in Karachi where the killing took place. Based on the applicant’s evidence, the political profile of [Uncle A] came from [Uncle A]’s activities in the home area and in Karachi and not from activities in Punjab province where Islamabad and Lahore are located. As well, while the applicant’s political connection with [Uncle A] at the time may have been significant in his home area, it is now years after [Uncle A]’s death and I do not accept that the applicant’s past political connection with [Uncle A] and their past political activities in [Village 1] will bring the applicant to the adverse attention of the Taliban, militants or their agents outside of his home area in distant Islamabad or Lahore, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future. Nor does the applicant suggest that he would travel to Karachi if he returns to Pakistan.
I acknowledge that the applicant may on returning to Pakistan seek to renew his connection with the ANP. However, when he was resident in Pakistan his political activities were localised in Peshawar and his local area. Other than his position in the student wing of the party during his student days he did not hold a party position and as he says, mainly assisted the party during two elections, now years in the past. Based on his previous political experience and activities I do not consider he will seek to be any more involved with mainstream politics than he had been. I do not accept that on his return and in the reasonably foreseeable future he will gain a heightened political profile in Islamabad or Lahore if he renews his connection with the ANP there. There is no material before the Tribunal that shows ANP members/supporters face a real chance of harm in Islamabad or Lahore for that reason. I do not accept that such political membership and activities will bring the applicant to face a reasonable chance of harm from the Taliban, militants or their agents or anyone else in the reasonably foreseeable future.
While the applicant’s humanitarian work with the PIHRO might have attracted the adverse attention of militants in the areas where the applicant conducted his humanitarian tasks, he did not face harm at the time and those activities are now years in the past. As I pointed out at the hearing, the PIHRO is based in Islamabad and I had found no reports that their members had ever suffered harm anywhere when carrying out their work. The applicant’s response that the Taliban had been against female education and if the work was not dangerous why then did the army escort them, ostensibly shows that the government provided state protection to those particular humanitarian workers at the time. However, I do not accept that in Islamabad or Lahore the applicant’s past humanitarian activities, now distant in time, will bring the applicant to the adverse attention of the Taliban, militants or their agents or anyone else now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I considered the applicant’s circumstances should he continue to be a PIHRO member if he returns to Pakistan. But as I have discussed there is no material before the Tribunal that suggests their members had ever suffered harm anywhere when carrying out their work, and the PIHRO is based in Islamabad but it appears the organisation has not been attacked there. Nor would he be involved in the same humanitarian activities that he previously performed largely in 2009 and 2010 and that were centred on Swat such as: distributing charitable goods and rations; showing PIHRO members around Swat; organising a lunch for displaced students; or at [university], arranging seminars. If he was a PIHRO member on returning to Pakistan and living in Islamabad or Lahore his activities, if any, in those cities would ostensibly not bring him to the adverse attention of the Taliban or other militants. I do not accept that if he renews his membership and humanitarian activities in Islamabad or Lahore, he will face a real chance of harm from the Taliban, militants or their agents or anyone else now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
After the military operation I accept the applicant returned the family to the village and re-settled the family there, before returning to Peshawar to continue his studies. I accept that during those periods when he was in [Village 1], he performed some tasks for [Village 1] VDC but I find those tasks had been widely performed by many villagers at the time and his role in the VDC was not at a high level. I accept he received a threatening Taliban letter but find this letter was no more than a general Taliban threat letter sent to [Uncle A] and him. I do not accept that the Taliban particularly identified him and [Uncle A] as the army informers who had helped the army which led to the deaths of important Taliban leaders or that revengeful talibs had continued to ask after him. I find it is most likely that [Uncle A] had been killed in Karachi because of his political profile in Karachi as an influential ANP member and Karachi businessman. In sum, the applicant’s activities with the VDC that I do accept he performed, were low level and widely performed in the local community at the time and I do not accept that those activities, now distant in time, will bring the applicant to the adverse attention of the Taliban, militants or their agents in Islamabad or Lahore, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Nor has the applicant worked for [Organisation 1] for several years and I do not accept this work was of such significance that it would now be remembered or bring the applicant to the adverse attention of the Taliban, militants or their agents or anyone else in Islamabad or Lahore, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
In sum, I do not accept that in Pakistan in Islamabad or Lahore now and in the reasonably foreseeable future there is a real chance the applicant will be pursued to and/or harmed or targeted by the Taliban, militants or their agents or anyone else for reason of any part of his past activities or identity including as a mature, single, educated, liberal Muslim Sunni and a Pashtun man from Swat who may again undertake political activities with the ANP, and who may again undertake humanitarian activities, who had sought to migrate to Australia and was now returning or returned, either when the parts are considered separately or cumulatively. I do not accept that the applicant’s family, social and political profile when considered cumulatively, will lead in the reasonably foreseeable future to a real chance that he will be targeted for harm by the Taliban, militants or their agents in Islamabad or Lahore. In light of the foregoing, I accept there is relative stability in the urban capitals of Islamabad and Lahore and not a situation of generalised violence, and I am not satisfied the relative stability is transient.
In my credibility findings above I accept the applicant has those psychological problems based on the expert reports and in particular the report of [date] July 2017 and the applicant’s evidence at the hearing. The most recent prognosis is that he will require treatment into the future. The expert report of [date] July 2017 gives the prognosis that ‘over a long period time’ the applicant will need regular, ongoing counselling and therapy and indicated these would include therapies for: relaxation; systematic desensitization; cognitive behaviour; acceptance and commitment; and attention control. The applicant’s evidence is that he takes medication and at the time of the hearing had one or two counselling sessions each month. The applicant and his representatives submit that mental health services would not be available to the applicant in Pakistan because country information shows: Pakistan has one of the world’s lowest ratios of mental health professionals per population; one of the lowest levels of public expenditure on mental health; and there is minimal training in psychotherapeutic techniques. I acknowledge that the mental health sector in Pakistan is under-developed and under pressure, may be expensive and almost all of it located in the cities. But as I pointed out at the hearing, country information[19] shows medical and mental health treatment and appropriate medication are available in Pakistan and ostensibly would be accessible by him. As I pointed out, a basic internet search shows lists of qualified mental health professionals in Pakistani cities including Islamabad and Lahore. There is no material before the Tribunal that suggests he would be denied treatment or have treatment withheld for any reason. In sum, I find that he can get medical and mental health treatment and appropriate medicine in Islamabad or Lahore now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he chooses to seek such care. I have considered but do not accept that mental health services would be unavailable to the applicant in Islamabad or Lahore because of the low ratio of mental health professionals per population, or the low level of public expenditure on mental health, or the level of training in psychotherapeutic techniques. I do not accept that the general scarcity of psychological support and counselling in Pakistan amounts to serious harm (or amounts to significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection).
[19] Pakistan Forward article, Pakistani psychiatrists blame Taliban for driving up mental illness rate, 26 October 2016, [ Search by Pakistan city: PsychologyMatters.Asia website and search engine, [ ; Psychologist/Psychological counselling in Islamabad, Pakistan: Yellow pages of Pakistan, [ and Psychologists in Lahore, [>
I accept that since 2014 he has received ongoing treatment with about half of his counselling sessions attended in 2017, and that the counselling has assisted him socially and enabled him to undertake work. After arriving in Australia he ceased his studies but then subsequently found work including as [occupations deleted]. At the hearing he discussed how he was able to successfully complete a course of training that enabled him to get a [professional licence] in order to work as a [occupation], and at the hearing he said he worked in [an industry]for a year, and the submission of 19 December 2017 says ‘several months’. The submission discussed how he decided to leave mention of his psychiatric treatment off his application for the [licence]. In sum, while he says that his condition led him to discontinue the [work], and while his work in Australia has been at a low skill level and not in the field of his qualifications and experience in Pakistan, he has nonetheless been able to financially support himself through his ongoing, casual work. Indeed, the submission of 19 December 2017 discussed how the applicant had been anxious to ensure that he was continuously employed, and how he had responsibility to provide for his family in Pakistan. In light of the applicant’s ongoing work in Australia, I am not satisfied that the applicant’s medical and mental health conditions and treatment will prevent or significantly hinder him from working in a range of occupations so that he is able to financially support himself and in future a family when he returns to Pakistan.
In his home country he will be familiar with the society and culture, and he is able to utilise several languages as his application shows he knows English, Urdu and Pashto. All of those languages will assist him in getting work and socialising in Pakistan. He has fully recognised Pakistani qualifications at University level [of] [a certain discipline] and his high level Pakistani education should ostensibly be of benefit when he seeks and gets work.
In light of the foregoing and having particular regard to the applicant’s mental health needs here, the nature of the symptoms discussed in the reports, and the applicant’s account of his psychological state- I am not satisfied the applicant will have psychiatric disorders that will attract the adverse attention of people in Pakistan such that they will seek to harm him. In Pakistan, I am not satisfied there is a real chance that his future condition will result in him experiencing serious harm including a threat to his life or liberty; significant physical harassment; significant physical ill-treatment; significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist; or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist. Nor am I satisfied his future condition will result in a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection.
When I consider all of the applicant’s personal circumstances including his mental health together, and all of my findings about his narrative and evidence together, and all of the submissions of the applicant and his representatives, I do not accept that in Pakistan in Islamabad or Lahore he faces harm from the Taliban (TTP) or militants or their agents, or from the Pakistan authorities or from any other agents or the general community. I find there is not a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution to him now and in the reasonably foreseeable future in residing in Pakistan in Islamabad or Lahore, for the reasons he has claimed, when considered singly or cumulatively of:
·Political opinion: He fears the Taliban (TTP) and their agents will harm him because of his political opinion (actual or imputed) as an opponent of that group and its aims. This arises from his ANP activities; actual support of the Village Defence Committee; pro-Western opinion (human rights and aid work); anti-Taliban opinion.
·He fears the Taliban (TTP) and their agents will harm him because of his Membership of a particular social group, of:
I find there is not a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution to him now and in the reasonably foreseeable future in residing in Pakistan in Islamabad or Lahore for any reason.
As well, I am satisfied it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to either of those areas as I now discuss. I consider the applicant has the capacity to relocate within Pakistan to Islamabad or Lahore as they are large and important cities in Pakistan and they are practically, safely and legally accessible. Indeed, the applicant’s evidence is that he flew out of Pakistan from Islamabad’s airport.
My considerations have also encompassed the applicant’s particular circumstances. The applicant is not married and currently has no wife and children to support. He is now a mature man who has demonstrated his ability to make his own way in life away from his parents and other family. I acknowledge that relocating from Australia to Islamabad or Lahore will be unsettling. Nonetheless, his migration status will have been resolved, albeit not the way he would like, and he would be returning to his home country and a city (Islamabad or Lahore) where there is a sizeable Pashtun community and which is dominated by Sunni Muslims.
While he will need to find accommodation and work in a Pakistan city where he has not previously lived, he has shown the ability to find accommodation with Pakistani students and work in a different country and culture- Australia- over the past four years. The applicant’s psychological problems are reported to have affected him socially, although by late 2015 it was reported that “now he is very much continuing to improve socially and is now engaged in light work”. The expert report of [date] July 2017 detailed his social problems but also spoke of his domestic life living in shared accommodation with other Pakistani students, and the submission of 19 December 2017 referred to the applicant hearing about an employment opportunity through the Swati community in [Australian city 1] and how he went through the steps to obtain the [professional licence] ‘as his friends had suggested’. The references to his life here show that despite his ongoing social problems, he has been able to get accommodation with other Pakistanis, associates with people in the Swati community, and has developed friendships. It is reasonable to consider he will be able to develop similar connections and friendships in Pakistan in Islamabad or Lahore. As discussed earlier, there are Pashtun communities in Islamabad and Lahore, if the applicant chooses to associate with Pashtuns on his return. In light of the country information about communities of Pashtuns in Islamabad and Lahore I do not accept that he will be unable to get any accommodation in those cities because of his social and ethnic profile.

The applicant is not in good mental health and will need further ongoing treatment, and his evidence is that he takes medication and at the time of the hearing had one or two counselling sessions each month. But in light of the foregoing I consider that if he chooses he will have access to and be able to get the medical and mental health treatment and appropriate medicine that he needs in Islamabad or Lahore now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The most recent expert opinion gave particular emphasis to the applicant’s stated subjective fear of harm in Pakistan and opined there is a strong possibility he could potentially ‘shut down’ mentally, and opined that if he relocated without the support of family networks and friends and “where there is general insecurity” he would also suffer psychologically. But in light of the foregoing I find there is not general insecurity in Islamabad or Lahore, and that the security situation there now and in the reasonably foreseeable future does not render relocation unreasonable for the applicant with his profile and psychological problems. I acknowledge he will not have a family network in Islamabad or Lahore, but in Pakistan he will have easier access to family members including extended family, even if just on the phone or other media. On arrival will not have a network of friends, but he has shown in Australia that despite his psychological/social problems he can develop friendships and supportive networks. He spoke to the psychologist about his experiences with the Taliban in Swat that included being assaulted on two occasions in 2008, witnessing explosions, and anxiety about the deaths of an aunt in 2009 and uncle in 2013. But during and since those occurrences he has also shown a level of resilience in completing high level studies to 2012 and then attaining his tertiary qualification in 2013 and next working as an [occupation] at [Organisation 1] in 2013, before travelling to Australia on a student visa where he has lived independently for over four years. In Islamabad or Lahore he will be able to live with Pashtuns which will ostensibly make it easier for him to develop friends and networks. While as a Pashtun he may face difficulties including racial profiling, harassment and difficulties in obtaining ID, I do not accept this level of harm or discrimination makes it unreasonable for him to live in Islamabad or Lahore. Indeed, as earlier discussed, other elements of the applicant’s profile such as being a well-educated man who had returned from a Western country would lessen the chance that the Pakistan authorities in Islamabad or Lahore would have an interest in him. And if the applicant came to the attention of the police and other authorities in those cities, he would be able to show them his tertiary education, past political and humanitarian activities with the ANP and PIHRO and their letters of support, and past residence in Australia- and all of these circumstances do not suggest the profile of a suspected terrorist. In sum, I have considered the expert’s opinion about the possibility of the applicant suffering psychologically and potentially shutting down if he returned to Pakistan, but in light of the foregoing I consider the chance that he faces further traumatizing events is remote. In these circumstances I am not satisfied there is a real chance that upon his return he will suffer symptoms any more serious than he has so far shown in Australia or other impairments. Nor am I satisfied the mental health treatment he did access would be ineffective or hindered for that reason.
The applicant’s medical and mental health conditions and treatment have not prevented the applicant from working in Australia and supporting himself and indeed, the submission of 19 December 2017 discussed how the applicant had been anxious to ensure that he was continuously employed, and how he had responsibility to provide for his family in Pakistan. In light of the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the applicant’s medical and mental health conditions and treatment will prevent or significantly hinder him from working in a range of occupations so that he is able to financially support himself and in future a family when he returns to Pakistan.
He is a Sunni and that is the majority religion in Pakistan and in Islamabad and Lahore. He will be able to practise his religion without difficulty in Pakistan.
In sum, I have carefully considered the submissions of the applicant and his representatives. But having carefully considered all of the applicant’s circumstances together, with a particular emphasis on his mental health and treatment, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, I find that the applicant has the capacity to relocate within Pakistan to Islamabad or Lahore, and for him, relocation is reasonable.
Refugee criterion
In light of the above assessment, the Tribunal finds that in Pakistan, and residing in Islamabad or Lahore, the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, for the reasons he claims or for any reason. The Tribunal finds that in Pakistan, and residing in Islamabad or Lahore, the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, for one or more of the Convention reasons either when looked at individually or cumulatively. The Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Pakistan. As well, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has the capacity to relocate within Pakistan to Islamabad or Lahore, and for him, relocation is reasonable.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Complementary protection
I considered whether on the evidence before me, there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the reasons set out above, I have not accepted there to be a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Pakistan, and residing in Islamabad or Lahore, now and in the foreseeable future. Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33. It follows that I do not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from anyone for the same reasons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan.
As well, for the reasons set out above, I find that the applicant has the capacity to relocate within Pakistan to Islamabad or Lahore, and for him, relocation is reasonable.

100. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
Overall Conclusion
101. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
102. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
103. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
104. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
C. Packer
Member

ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, 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.
Refugee
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.

Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection
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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

Pfizer Pakistan, [ ;
Paroxetine/paxil in Pakistan, [

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Jurisdiction
Natural Justice
Procedural Fairness
Statutory Construction
Standing

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

1600747 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 495

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

[2018] AATA 495

6 February 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing