1600946 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to refuse protection visas to a husband, wife, and their two adult children, who were citizens of Pakistan and practising Catholics. The applicants claimed they feared persecution due to the first applicant's former role as a Catholic priest, a dispute with a neighbour involving allegations of blasphemy, and threats from militant groups. The Tribunal had considered policy guidelines and country information relevant to protection status determination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether they faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Pakistan, thereby meeting the criteria for complementary protection. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims, the nature and source of the threats they alleged, and the availability of effective state protection within Pakistan, including the possibility of internal relocation.

The court considered the applicant's history, including his time as a priest, his employment experiences where he alleged discrimination due to his faith, and a protracted dispute with a neighbour. This dispute escalated to accusations of blasphemy, threats of violence, and the alleged involvement of extremist groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipha e Sahaba Pakistan. The court noted that while the delegate found the applicant credible regarding the blasphemy accusations and threats, the delegate also considered the possibility that the neighbour's initial offer of money was motivated by a desire to prevent a house extension rather than solely religious differences. Crucially, the delegate accepted a well-founded fear of persecution for religious reasons in the applicants' home region but concluded that internal relocation to another part of Pakistan was a viable option to avoid serious harm.

The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the risk of significant harm, particularly in relation to the availability of effective state protection and the feasibility of internal relocation. The decision of the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination.