1601462 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4199

1601462 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4199 (25 July 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1601462

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:James Jolliffe

DATE:25 July 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 25 July 2016 at 4:14pm

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan , applied for the visa [in] November 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] August 2013.

3. The matter was remitted by consent from the Federal circuit Court of Australia in January 2016 on the basis that the Refugee Review Tribunal had failed to give the applicant an opportunity to give evidence and/or present arguments in relation to an issue arising in relation to the decision under review, namely whether the applicant and his partner were in a committed or long-term relationship.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 June 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s wife, [Ms A].

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

Relevant Law

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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’).

10.  In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take 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 any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11.  The Tribunal has before it the Department and Tribunal files relating to the applicant together with relevant information from a variety of sources.

12.  The issues in this case are the applicant claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis that he would be imputed, because of his relationship in Australia with a Christian person, to being perceived  as having converted from his Muslim religion to Roman Catholicism. He claimed that he would also be at risk as a member of one of the following particular social groups, a person defying the enshrined traditional tribal and cultural values of Pakistan, a Pakistani male educated in the West, a Pakistani male who had entered into an interreligious and interracial relationship, a Pakistani male engaged in a love relationship, a Pakistani male defying family tradition of arranged marriage and a Pakistani male facing forced marriage. He also claimed to be at risk of harm as a member of a particular social group in that he would be a Pakistani male perceived as an apostate as well as imputed as a young Muslim convert to Roman Catholicism.

13.  For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed

14. In his protection Visa application which was lodged in November 2012 the applicant claimed that he had been born in Karachi in Sindh province in Pakistan on [date]. He claimed to be of Punjabi ethnic extraction and to be of the Sunni Muslim religion. He claimed never to have married. He claimed to have no right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Pakistan. He claimed to have been issued with his most recent Pakistani passport in [2012] and to have arrived in Australia in July 2008. He claimed to have been issued initially with a Pakistani passport in [2007]. He claimed to have lived in Karachi from 1998 until August 2008. He claimed to have received [number] years of education in Pakistan and Australia. He claimed that he was employed in Australia. He said in his protection Visa application that he had come to Australia to further his studies. He said his family was a very conservative Muslim family. He said he met his then girlfriend ( [Ms A]) in July 2012 and that she is [of a different ethnicity] and a permanent resident of Australia and that she was married and had children. He said that she was a Roman Catholic.

15.  The applicant claimed that he and [Ms A] fell in love online before they physically met. In summary he spoke about their relationship and that [Ms A] was intending to divorce her husband but that they had decided to commit to an exclusive relationship. The applicant claimed that he would face significant harm if he returned to Pakistan with [Ms A] because Islamic fundamentalists would consider him an apostate and an infidel and that his family might kill him or exclude him because he destroyed their dignity and that his family would force him to marry a girl of their choice. He claimed he would not get adequate state protection and that if he relocated he would still face a real risk of harm because the Islamic fundamentalists have a well-established network throughout Pakistan. The applicant provided further information about his family in Pakistan and he said his father and mother were in Pakistan and that he had a number of siblings in Pakistan. He provided a copy of his Pakistani passport with his protection Visa application. He provided a statutory declaration dated 8 April 2013. In that declaration in summary he referred to his family background and his religious background and that his family is a very conservative Muslim family. He said his family did not accept or tolerate love marriages and marriage out of their caste or religion. He claimed his family had a tradition of marrying “within our relatives and my father is very strict on that”.

16.  He claimed his father had already arranged for the applicant’s [sibling] to marry [a relative] and the [sibling] was pressured to engage in that marriage. The applicant claimed that [Relative 1] married a woman from another caste and ran away but that when he was eventually located he was forced at gun point to divorce his wife and returned to the family Village. The applicant spoke about coming to Australia as a student and undertaking studies and also referred to the circumstances in which he met [Ms A]. He said [Ms A] was in the process of divorcing her husband. The applicant said he was deeply in love with [Ms A] and referred to their social activities and said that they were planning to get married after she got divorced. He said some of his friends knew of their relationship. He said that he feared harm if he returned to Pakistan because Islamic fundamentalists would consider him an apostate and an infidel and that his family might kill or exclude him because of his relationship with a foreigner and a Christian. He also claimed to fear harm because his family would force him to marry a girl of their choice and he also said he would not get adequate state protection and could not safely relocate elsewhere in Pakistan.

17.  On 8 April 2013 the applicant’s representative forwarded a very long submission to the Department on the applicant’s behalf. In summary that submission referred to the applicant’s claims for seeking protection in Australia on the basis of religion and his claimed membership of  particular social groups. The submissions claimed that the applicant could not safely relocate within Pakistan or be provided with effective state protection in Pakistan and that Australia had protection obligations to the applicant. In summary those submissions referred to the refugee Convention. The submissions also referred to a number of articles on honour killings targeting people engaged in love marriages in Pakistan as well as statements and reports on persecution against apostates and reports and statements on persecution against Roman Catholics in Pakistan. The submissions also referred to the various background articles and reports on general human rights abuses in Pakistan and also referred to various RRT country advice reports and decisions said to be relevant to the applicants claims. The submissions also referred to other decisions from overseas jurisdictions in relation to the applicant’s claims.

18.  In summary the submissions claimed that the country information “clearly establishes the people in Pakistan live in a world, which is structured by strict religious, family and tribal customs.” The submissions also claim that religion and politics go hand-in-hand in Pakistan and that increases the problems of people who engage in interreligious marriages in Pakistan. The submissions in summary then referred to various media reports which are said to be relevant to the applicant’s claims and including crimes of violence in relation to people engaged in love marriages and also some of the articles referred to honour killings in Pakistan which occurred as a result of interfaith or intercaste marriages or marriages that occurred and that had not been arranged or were not approved of by the family of one or both of the participants. The submissions in summary refer to various international reports and other media reports in relation to these, and associated, issues. The submissions in summary also refer to reports regarding the killing of apostates and also referred to persecution and attacks against Christians in Pakistan. The submissions in summary refer to the background to Pakistani political history and referred to various international reports in relation to conditions in Pakistan and including reports about the overall human rights situation in Pakistan. The submissions in summary also referred to violence caused by militants and extremists in Pakistan and to reports about those activities. The submissions in summary also referred to issues about the treatment of women in Pakistan and referred to statistics regarding honour killings and that honour killings remained a serious and persistent problem in Pakistan. The submissions refer to the motives and methods used in honour killings. The submissions in summary also referred to the concept of particular social groups and referred to the applicant’s situation and his claims in relation to membership of  particular social groups and his fear of harm on that basis if he returned to Pakistan. The submissions also in summary refers to the concept of forced marriages and that concepts inter relationship with persecution under the refugee Convention. The submissions referred to the concepts of serious harm and well-founded fear. The submissions referred to the applicant’s claims that he could not get effective state protection in Pakistan and also referred to a number of issues in relation to the concept of claiming complementary protection. The submissions claim that interreligious and inter-relational relationships are deep rooted problems in Pakistan. In conclusion the submissions suggest that Australia has protection obligations towards the applicant and the protection is owed to the applicant on the basis of his race and his political views and his membership of  particular social groups.

19.  The applicant’s representative also provided a number of photographs in April 2013 of the applicant and [Ms A] in support of their relationship as well as a statutory declaration from [Ms A] which referred to the relationship with the applicant. The representative also provided two declarations from other witnesses in support of the applicant’s claims that he and [Ms A] were in a committed relationship. The Tribunal was also provided with a copy of a marriage certificate in relation to the marriage of the applicant and [Ms A] which occurred [in] June 2016 together with some photographs from that ceremony and further submissions were received on 8 June 2016 from the applicant’s representative which referred to further statements and reports on male honour killings in Pakistan and in summary referred to harm to males in relation to honour killings and interfaith relationships in Pakistan. The submissions in summary submitted that honour killings against men occurred in Pakistan and that the applicant who was in an interreligious and interracial relationship would face a real risk of significant harm on that basis.

20.  The applicant had provided another statutory declaration in March 2014 and in summary in that declaration referred to him being involved in a genuine relationship with [Ms A] and that the applicant did what not want her moving to Pakistan because her life would be in danger. The applicant in summary referred to Pakistani law and gave an example of an ex-governor who had been killed because he gave a favourable statement for a non-Muslim girl who was the subject of judicial proceedings. In summary the applicant claimed that he could not be protected by the law in Pakistan and referred to the risk to him of being the victim of an honour killing. The applicant in summary referred to his family being strictly religious and following family traditions and also referred to the concept of forced or arranged marriages in Pakistan and that families did not allow marriages to people of other nationalities or religion. The applicant had also provided some photographs essentially of the applicant and [Ms A] and/or [Ms A]’s family.

21.  The applicant’s representative provided further submissions on 2 April 2014.after the  RRT hearing. In summary those submissions referred to reports on male honour killings in Pakistan and referred the Tribunal to various reports on that issue. The submissions also referred to a research report from the immigration and refugee board of Canada dated 29 September 2009 which indicated that the information about men in Pakistan who refused to participate in arranged marriages was “scarce among the sources consulted by the research directorate”. The report referred to a BBC article in February 2007 which referred to a man living in England who had travelled to Pakistan for a holiday and when he arrived discovered that he had to marry his cousin to whom he had been engaged since he was eight. The report indicated that when the man “refused to marry her,  he was drugged then put in shackles and imprisoned in the local mosque to learn respect for Islamic tradition”. The submissions also referred to a report dated July 2009 from the Austrian Centre for the country of origin and Asylum research and documentation which indicated that in summary honour killings and mutilations occurred throughout Pakistan during the year and that some men had also been subject to honour killings (which given that the report was published in February 2009 would suggest that the activities occurred in 2008). The submissions refer to a report of May 2009 which indicates that 13 men were killed in honour killings between January and March 2009 in the Sindh province. Another report (the Amnesty International report published in May 2008) refers to 104 cases of men being killed for supposedly harming family honour in the first months of 2007 in the Sindh province. The submissions refer to a report published by the immigration and refugee board of Canada on the topic of honour killings in Pakistan in January 2007.

22.  That report refers to a 2004 ministerial statement provided to the Senate in Pakistan which indicated that 4000 women and men had become victims of honour killings in the six years leading up to 2004. The submissions referred to a further report dated January 2013 from the immigration and refugee board of Canada in relation to honour killings in Pakistan which indicated that 70% of the victims of honour killings were women and 30% were men and that a senior police officer had claimed that in 2011 in Sindh province 73 women and 30 men were victims of honour killings. A further report was also referred to in relation to arranged marriages in terms of the thinking of an Islamic seminary which indicated that children should follow the choice of their parents for marriage and that a person who is religious should get priority over a wealthy person. That report indicated that religion should be given priority in choosing a proposal and that children should follow the choice of their parents. The submissions suggest in summary that honour killings against men occurred in Pakistan and that men who refused to participate in arranged marriages (by their parents) face harm. The submissions also suggest that [Tradition 1] tradition expects the children to follow the choice of their parents in relation to marriage. The submissions suggest that the applicant would face forced marriage and the religious tradition of [Tradition 1] expects him to accept the choice of his parents. The submissions refer to country information in supporting the applicants claims. The submissions indicate that [Tradition 1] Islamic tradition is considered as extreme and conservative Islamic tradition and that the applicant would face a real risk of harm if he failed to accept the marriage arranged by his parents.

23.  The applicant attended before a Department delegate in relation to his protection Visa application. The delegate declined to grant the applicant a protection Visa.

TRIBUNAL HEARING

24.  the applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 June 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant’s wife, [Ms A], also gave evidence to the Tribunal on that occasion.

25.  [Ms A] said she became an Australian citizen in October 2014 and she produced her Australian passport to the Tribunal. She said she married the applicant [in] June 2016. She said she and her children and the applicant lived at an address in [suburb] in [city]. She said she and the applicant had lived together since February 2015. She said she divorced her first husband in August 2014. The Tribunal asked her why there had been a delay in marrying the applicant. She said she had lost her passport and needed to save money and that she had the custody of the [number] children in responding to the Tribunal’s question about the delay in marrying the applicant. The Tribunal found [Ms A] vague in providing information to the Tribunal about the delay in marrying the applicant. In essence the Tribunal believed that her evidence indicated that financial reasons were the basis for the delay in marrying the applicant.

26.  She told the Tribunal about meeting the applicant online in July 2012 and she spoke about the online relationship. She said she met the applicant in person in September 2012 and that she had separated from her husband in May 2012. She said that the applicant picks up her children from school and the Tribunal was also provided with photos from a child’s birthday party to show the applicant’s involvement with [Ms A]’s children.

27.  The Tribunal asked [Ms A] about her statutory declaration dated April 2013 in relation to her involvement with the applicant. The Tribunal referred [Ms A] to paragraph 14 of the declaration and noted that she had described the applicant’s parents as very conservative Muslims. She told the Tribunal that the applicant had told her about what happened to [Relative 1] when [Relative 1] had married outside an arranged marriage. The applicant had referred to that issue in paragraph 7 of his statutory declaration of April 2013.

28.  [Ms A] told the Tribunal that she had never spoken to the applicant’s parents. She was asked if she would relocate to Pakistan if the applicant had to return to Pakistan and she said she would not relocate. She said she feared harm if she went to Pakistan and referred to cultural and religious reasons why she would not relocate to Pakistan and including that the applicant’s parents may not like her. She also said that there were issues about relocating her children and obtaining work if she relocated. She said she came from [Country 1]. She said that she was also concerned that her husband, the applicant, might be forced into an arranged marriage if he returned to Pakistan. She said she married the applicant because she loved him and that they had married in a civil ceremony. She said she was still a practising Catholic and attended Mass every week and that her children are baptised as Catholics. She said the applicant provides financial support and assistance to her and that he works four days a week

29.  The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal. He confirmed his personal particulars and including his education background and his employment in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he sometimes speaks to a [sibling] and his mother in Pakistan . His [other siblings] are married and his mother and father continue to reside in Karachi. He told the Tribunal that his family in Pakistan are conservative and he feared harm from his family and relatives if he returned to Pakistan. He said he was also afraid that if his wife visited him in Pakistan that he was afraid of harm from Islamic extremists/fundamentalists. He told the Tribunal that he feared that if he returned to Pakistan his family would force him to marry someone and that if he refused he could be killed or harmed and he was also afraid that he might be abducted and killed by Islamic extremists. He said his claims to fear harm on the basis that he could be imputed to have converted to the Catholic faith were because he married a Catholic. He claimed as well that he feared harm on the basis of his claimed membership of a number of particular social groups. Those particular social groups are that he could be perceived to be a person who has defied the enshrined traditional tribal and cultural values and that he is also a Pakistani male who has been educated in the West and he also claims to fear harm on the basis of his membership of a particular social group in that he is a Pakistani male who was entered into an interreligious and interracial relationship. He also claimed to fear harm on the basis of his membership of a particular social group in that he is a Pakistani male who has engaged in a love relationship as well as defying a family tradition of arranged marriages and forced marriages. He also claimed to fear harm on the basis that he is a Pakistani male who would be perceived to be an apostate if he returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal also asked if he was claiming harm on the basis of his race on the basis that he identified as of  Punjabi ethnic extraction in his protection Visa application. The Tribunal also noted that in the submissions dated April 2013 (page105) the claim was made that the applicant was owed protection in Australia on the basis of his “race, political views and the membership of the particular social groups”. The Tribunal was told that the applicant was not seeking protection on the basis of his race or on the basis of political opinion and that he was seeking protection in Australia on the basis of his religion and his membership of  particular social groups.

30.  He told the Tribunal during the course of the hearing that his family belonged to the [Tradition 1] stream of Sunni Islam. He said his family had extreme views about religious issues. The applicant said he was of the Sunni Islamic faith. He said he practised his faith in Pakistan by offering prayers and going to the mosque three times a day and also undertaking prayers at home. He said in Australia he just attends at the mosque on Fridays and that he was not as strict practising his religion in Australia as he had been in Pakistan. He said he has friends in Australia and socialises with them. He said his family did not know that he was married. He said that his wife would not relocate to Pakistan if he had to return to Pakistan and that there were cultural issues and issues about her children in terms of relocating to Pakistan. He said that his wife would just visit him in Pakistan if he had to return.

31.  The applicant told the Tribunal that he had not been threatened or harmed by his family but said he did not know if he would be harmed. He referred to what happened to [Relative 1], because he had not initially participated in an arranged marriage and that [a sibling] had accepted an arranged marriage. He said [another sibling] was now also married.

He said that his family had a tradition of only marrying within the wider family. He said [one sibling] had married a cousin and that [another sibling] was married to a more distant relative and had married in 2014.

32.  He was asked why there had been a delay in marrying [Ms A] after her divorce in 2014. He said that he and [Ms A] were saving money and that she had also received assistance from Centrelink. He said she had also lost her passport and that they have been looking at starting a business(and saving money for that) and that she had also returned to [Country 1] for two weeks. He claimed that marrying [Ms A] earlier would have affected her Centrelink benefits.

33.  The applicant said that he had last spoken to his father about 8 to 10 months ago (in terms of the Tribunal hearing). He was asked about the claim that his father had wanted him to return to Pakistan and the applicant said that his father had asked him to return in 2009 after the applicant had been in Australia for about a year. He said he was not on bad terms with his father or with his family and claimed that in around 2010 his mother had said that it was time for the applicant to get married. He told the Tribunal that he did not think that there had been anyone who had been identified yet in Pakistan for him to marry in terms of an arranged marriage.

34.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claims that he had made in the statutory declaration that [Relative 1] had not participated in an arranged marriage and had married outside the caste and that he had been located by the family and forced to divorce his wife and forced into an arranged marriage. He told the Tribunal that he thought that it occurred around 2005 and that the applicant’s father had been involved in searching for [Relative 1] but he was not sure as to his father’s role in terms of any harm coming to [Relative 1] arising out of that incident.

35.  The Tribunal noted that the Department delegates record of decision in relation to the applicants protection Visa application had referred (see page 12 of the decision record) to a Muslim man being able to marry a woman of “the book” (Jew or Christian) and in those circumstances asked the applicant why he would be at risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of having married a Catholic. He said that the risk of harm came about because he had entered into a marriage of his choice.

36.  He was asked about the fact that his family had allowed him to come to Australia to study and that seemed inconsistent with his claims that his family were very conservative and very strict and yet he was allowed to come to a Western country. He said he had not returned to Pakistan since he had come to Australia and that he initially got some financial support from his family but that stopped in 2009 and that from then on he had worked. He also confirmed that his father had asked him to return home after he had been in Australia for about one year.

37.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims that his family were a conservative Muslim family. He said that when he was in Pakistan he could not speak to his female cousins. He said his father was not involved in politics. He said his father follows strict Sunni Muslim beliefs but his father did not belong to any religious organisations. The applicant said that everyone he knew in Pakistan had entered into an arranged marriage. As indicated the applicant told the Tribunal that his family follows the [Tradition 1] stream of the Sunni Islamic faith. He said his father had graduated from University but that his mother had only completed year [grade] schooling. He said his [siblings] had gone to University and graduated but that notwithstanding their education the family still followed strict religious and cultural values. He told the Tribunal that his principal concern to fear harm was from his father but that his mother would follow his father. He claimed that his father beat him and his siblings when they were younger to enforce discipline and in relation to religious issues. He claimed his father had [number] [siblings] and that the whole family had engaged in arranged marriages. He claims his family has “ royal blood” and the family also has a rural background and that by implication that reinforces conservative caste values.

38.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he could not relocate in Pakistan to avoid harm if he feared harm in his home area of Karachi in Pakistan. The applicant’s family lives in Karachi in Sindh Province in Pakistan.The applicant said that he would have difficulty relocating because of his Punjabi ethnic extraction and he claimed that he would be at risk in Balochistan province and in the tribal areas because of his Punjabi ethnic extraction. He also claimed that his family would be able to find him anywhere in Pakistan and that he had relatives who were formerly in the army in Pakistan and he implied that those relatives would be able to use their connections to locate the applicant anywhere in Pakistan. He thought that one [relative] had used his army connections to locate [Relative 1] when [Relative 1] had married outside his caste(relating to the claim in paragraph 7 of the applicant’s statutory declaration of April 2013). He claimed [a number] of his [relatives] had links to the army.

39.  He said that if he returned to Pakistan he would live with his family and work in Karachi. He claimed he would be forced to marry in an arranged marriage and that if he would have to get divorced or face the consequences. He claimed his family would hurt him and he referred to fearing having his bones broken.

40.  He was asked why he came to Australia and he said that he wanted to travel and had gone to a consultant and was told Australia was a good place to study. He said his father was not in favour of him travelling but he agreed after his mother spoke to his father and his mother had helped him to be allowed to travel.

41.  He claimed he would not be able to get effective state protection in Pakistan and that there was no law enforcement protection in relation to harm arising out of arranged marriages and associated issues.

42.  He was asked if he had any comments on the delegate’s findings in relation to his protection Visa application and he said that he was the only one in his family who had been allowed to study overseas.

43.  He was asked if he had any comments on the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision of 24 April 2014 in relation to his protection Visa application. The Tribunal referred to paragraphs 33 and 37 of that decision and noted that the RRT on that occasion had found that the applicant had greatly exaggerated his relationship with [Ms A] and the consequences that he faced because of that relationship. The current Tribunal also noted that the RRT had considered the applicant’s claims that his family would force him to marry and that if he refused he would face life-threatening harm in Pakistan. The RRT had concluded that if the applicant did return to Pakistan and his family required him to engage in an arranged marriage that would ultimately be up to the applicant as to whether he accepted and complied with an arranged marriage. The RRT had formed the view that arranged marriages and violence in relation to that issue essentially arose in conservative and often poorly educated families from rural communities. The RRT was not satisfied that the applicant belonged to such a family and that the applicant’s claims in that regard had been contrived in the belief that it would enable him to get a protection Visa.

44.  The applicant said in response that even though his father and [siblings] had gone to university that the family was very strict and conservative and that the wider family was not well educated and by implication that he would be at risk on that basis if he returned to Pakistan. As indicated he had also told the Tribunal that the family had a rural background and that it had “royal blood” and that was an issue in relation to following traditions involving caste and cultural and religious issues.

45.  The current Tribunal noted that much of the country information regarding forced marriages referred to the risk of harm for women as opposed to men in Pakistan. The Tribunal referred to information contained in the delegate’s record of decision (see page 13)and  that in a 2011 article the International Christian Concern had noted that the victims in relation to forced conversions to Islam, rapes and forced marriages are on the rise in Pakistan but that the victims are mostly Hindu and Christian girls, belonging to religious minorities. The Tribunal also referred to a background paper dated February 2014 which was available to the Tribunal and which referred to marriages and divorces and births and deaths in Pakistan and included information about arranged marriages and forced marriages in Pakistan. The Tribunal noted that the background paper indicated that marriage without consent is illegal in Pakistan and that young girls are particularly vulnerable to forced marriage. The paper indicated that the vast majority of marriages in Pakistan are arranged. The paper indicates that the BBC reported that an estimated 900 women were killed in honour killings in Pakistan in 2012 but that not all of those killings related to marriage or relationships. The BBC report indicated that in Pakistan family honour was closely tied to the behaviour of females but that report in January 2012 also said that it was also common for families to kill the male partner. The background paper also indicated that Pakistani police had a mixed record in relation to providing protection to couples at risk of harm by family members.

46.  The applicant was asked if he had anything further to raise in relation to his claims and he said that in relation to relocation that he would be identified when he was seeking accommodation and in trying to make other arrangements

47.  The Tribunal referred to country information contained in the DFAT country report for Pakistan. The country report for Pakistan is dated January 2016. The Tribunal noted that corruption in Pakistan is widespread and that the Department assessment is that the low-level of development in Pakistan is a significant push factor for external migration. The Tribunal noted that Pakistan continues to face security threats from terrorist, militant and sectarian groups. The country report indicates that the counterterrorism military operation that commenced in June 2014 against terrorists and militant groups in FATA and Karachi has substantially reduced the level of generalised and sectarian violence throughout the country. Credible sources were reported to have claimed a 75% reduction in the number of sectarian and terrorist attacks throughout Pakistani between September 2014 and September 2015. The country report indicated that the security situation varies between Pakistan's provinces and autonomous regions. The level of violence varies between provinces and including Sindh province where Karachi is located. Urban centres tend to be more secure than rural areas. The country report noted that organised and violent crimes such as robbery and kidnappings for ransom occur throughout Pakistan. The paramilitary ranger operations in Karachi are said to have substantially reduced the level of serious crime throughout Pakistan.

48. The country report noted that with the exception of Pakistan's Ahmadi community most Pakistanis are able to practice their religion freely although opportunities for religious freedom are generally greater in large urban centres than rural areas. The Department assessment is that there is generally a low level of official discrimination in Pakistan on the basis of religion but there is a moderate level of societal discrimination. The country report indicates that since September 2013 ranger paramilitary operations aimed at dismantling extensive militant and politico-criminal networks in Karachi have reduced the number of militant attacks and lessened the activities of criminal syndicates. According to official statistics there has been a 73% reduction in the number of targeted killings and an 85% reduction in the number of kidnapping for ransom incidents in Karachi in 2015. The report indicated that the Department does not yet have sufficient information to assess the sustainability of this downward trend in relation to crime statistics. The country report indicated in relation to state protection that Pakistan's laws and Constitution provide for state protection but the Department assessment is state protection is limited by resources and in some cases political will and personal means. The report also indicates that there are variations in the effectiveness of individual police forces in Pakistan and the capacity to maintain law and order is generally limited by a lack of resources, poor training, insufficient and outmoded equipment and manipulation by superiors and political actors and the judiciary.

49. The country report indicates that the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of movement in Pakistan and that there is a high level of internal migration. The report notes that because of Pakistan's size and diversity there are viable relocation options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities and that many large urban centres such as Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad are home to mixed ethnic and religious communities and offer a greater degree of anonymity and the opportunity for victims to seek refuge from nonstate instigated discrimination or violence as well as better employment prospects and access to services and state protection than smaller urban areas or rural areas. The country report notes that the security situation in Lahore remains better than many other places in Pakistan, with lower levels of generalised and sectarian violence than many other major population centres. The country report indicates that document fraud is endemic in Pakistan and that there is credible evidence of police in Pakistan accepting bribes to verify fraudulent first information reports. The report notes that the existence of a first information report does not therefore constitute evidence that the described events actually occurred. The report also notes that the Department assessment is that individuals are not subject to discrimination or violence on the basis of having spent time in the West. The Report also indicates that in relation to women that in rural and tribal areas the traditional justice system is more prevalent than the formal justice system and that these rigid cultural traditions deny women their legal rights and failed to protect them from discrimination or abuse. The report refers to a traditional practice in some areas where women are given away as brides to resolve a dispute between families. The Department assessment is that women and girls are increasingly marginalised in Pakistani society. The Department assessment is also that there is a low level of official discrimination and a moderate level of societal discrimination against Pakistan’s Christian community and that overall Christians in Pakistan are subject to a low level of communal and sectarian violence. As indicated the Tribunal had also referred to information contained in the background paper dated February 2014 in relation to arranged and forced marriages.

50.  The applicant in responding to the country information referred to by the Tribunal noted the information that there were a high number of arranged marriages in Pakistan.

51.  The Tribunal referred to concerns that it had about the applicant’s claims and the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal indicated that overall it had a concern that the applicant had a well-founded fear of harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his claims. The Tribunal indicated that it was concerned that the applicant may have exaggerated his claims to fear harm from his family on the basis of his claims and in those circumstances the Tribunal was concerned about the credibility of the applicants claims. The Tribunal indicated that it seemed that relocation was a viable option for the applicant if he feared harm in his home area. The applicant said in response that he had relatives throughout Pakistan and that people would find him and tell his family where he was located if he relocated. The Tribunal indicated that the country information that has been referred to by the Tribunal was not supportive in some respects in relation to the applicants claims. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had never claimed to have been actually threatened and he did not have a history of harm from his family in Pakistan. The applicant responded by saying that his family did not know about what he had done (in terms of his marriage and relationship) but by implication he would face harm if his family knew about what he had done in terms of these issues.

52.  The applicant’s representative made submissions to the Tribunal and referred to the written submissions of 8 June 2016 in relation to statements and reports on male honour killings in Pakistan and, in summary, that the reports referred to in those submissions confirm that honour killings against men do occur in Pakistan and that the applicant would be at risk of harm on that basis because he had engaged in an inter religious and interracial relationship(as indicated in the written submissions). The applicant’s representative also referred to a report in the Guardian from July 2010 headed “More men seek help with forced marriages” in discussing this aspect. The representative also referred to the written submissions of 2 April 2014 in relation to male honour killings in Pakistan and also noted that the submissions had also raised that the applicant’s family in Pakistan followed the strict [Tradition 1] Sunni stream of Islamic faith and that stream, as indicated previously, expects the applicant to accept the choice of his parents in relation to forced and arranged marriages. The applicant’s representative also suggested that the applicant’s family in Pakistan had the capacity to find the applicant anywhere in Pakistan and referred to the claims by the applicant that members of his family had a military background and were able to use those connections to locate family members and that therefore relocation was not a reasonable option for the applicant if he returned to Pakistan and feared harm in his home area in Karachi. The representative also indicated that the United States Department of State bureau of diplomatic security report for 2016 indicated that crime had increased in Karachi and that information was not consistent with the information contained in the DFAT country report referred to by the Tribunal. The representative also said that the applicant would not be able to get adequate state protection in Pakistan and that again in addressing the internal relocation issue said that if the applicant wished to practice his religion he would need to verify his background wherever he was and that information could be used by his family to locate him. In summary the representative said that two key issues were the information that had been provided to the Tribunal in relation to male honour killings in Pakistan and the information in relation to internal relocation and state protection in Pakistan. The Tribunal allowed until 21 June 2016 for the provision of any further information or submissions to the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s claims.

53.  The Tribunal received some further information on 23 June 2016. That information consisted of a telephone invoice indicating that the applicant was using his wife’s email address to receive documentation and that a telephone account showed that the applicant had the same address as his wife. Further country information was provided regarding the prevalence of male forced marriages in Pakistan and that regardless of educational and professional backgrounds families  in Pakistan continued to force their male children to marry within their caste. There was also further country information from  2016 indicating crime rates had increased in Pakistan. The attached documentation included a report from the BBC dated July 2010 that indicated that a government unit in the UK (the forced marriage unit) had an increase of 65% more calls about males being forced into marriages and that the majority of cases involved families from South Asia and particularly Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. That report indicated that the victims were usually aged between 15 and 24 and that they were often locked up and subjected to physical and sexual violence and forcibly removed to other countries if they refused to comply with their family’s wishes in relation to forced marriage. The report also indicated that it was estimated that there were more like 10,000 incidents of forced marriage involving British nationals each year and that up to 20% of those incidents related to men(as victims). The Tribunal was also provided with a copy of the Guardian article dated July 2010 which in essence refers to the report from the forced marriage unit which is referred to above. That report notes in relation to male victims that the majority of calls to the unit had come from men linked to Pakistan.

54.  In relation to the crime and safety report from the United States Department of State bureau of diplomatic security the Tribunal was provided with a parts of the Pakistan 2016 report which referred to crime and safety in Peshawar, Lahore and Islamabad. Those extracts indicate that the agency gave a high crime rating to Peshawar and Lahore. The report indicates that in 2015 the overall reports of criminal activity in Lahore increased by over 20%. The report indicates that a comparative analysis of figures from police and security entities operating throughout Pakistan indicated that incidents of crime are inaccurately and underreported and that the security situation in many rural areas is extremely hazardous. The Report indicates that crime and safety in Karachi are major concerns and that many areas are considered unsafe due to a high crime rate and a lack of effective police control and the presence of extremist elements and discusses particular areas in Karachi least prone to safety. The report refers to a large-scale security operation carried out by the Sindh Rangers and the Sindh police as having resulted in an improvement in several categories in relation to crime and violence but the report indicates that the violent crime rate remains high and that it remained to be seen if the improvements would endure when the security operations ended.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

55.  On the basis of the materials and information provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Pakistani citizen and that his identity is as he claims it to be. The Tribunal accepts, without evidence to the contrary, that on the basis of the information and materials provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal, that the applicant does not have a right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts that Pakistan is the applicant’s country of nationality for Convention purposes and is the receiving country for Complementary protection purposes.

56.  The Tribunal has considered the applicants claims that he fears harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis of his religion and on the basis of his claimed membership of a number of particular social groups. In the Tribunal’s assessment the core claim by the applicant to fear harm is based on his marriage to his wife, [Ms A]. [Ms A] claims to be a Catholic. [Ms A] is an Australian citizen but is of [Country 1] extraction. The Tribunal accepts, without evidence to the contrary, that [Ms A] is of the Catholic faith. The Tribunal accepts, on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, that the applicant and [Ms A] are married and are in a committed and genuine relationship. In essence, and in summary, the applicant claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis that he could be imputed to have converted to Catholicism from his Sunni Islamic faith(because of his marriage) and that he claims that because of his relationship with his wife he fears harm because of his claimed membership of a number of particular social groups and those social groups have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. In particular many of those social groups relate to the applicant’s relationship with his wife and they include that by marrying his wife he has defied his family in terms of marrying outside traditional tribal and cultural arrangements and in particular in relation to arranged and forced marriages and that he has entered into an interreligious and interracial relationship. The particular social groups include the perception that because the applicant has married a person of the Catholic faith that he could also be perceived as an apostate in relation to his Islamic faith. He also claims to fear harm if he returned to Pakistan on the basis that he is a Pakistani male who has received education in the West.

57.  The Tribunal has referred to the applicant’s claims and to the applicant’s evidence about these issues. It has also referred to written and oral submissions made on the applicant’s behalf. It has also referred to information contained in the DFAT country report for Pakistan dated January 2016 and to country information contained in a background paper that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal accepts that the DFAT country report provides comparatively recent and credible information relevant to a number of the applicant’s claims.

58.  The applicant claimed to fear harm from his family and relatives if he returned to Pakistan in essence because of his relationship and marriage to [Ms A]. He told the Tribunal that his family were very conservative and strict in relation to religious and tribal and cultural issues. He claimed his family followed a strict form/stream of the Sunni Islamic faith which is known as [Tradition 1]. That claim was made briefly in written submissions dated April 2014 and briefly in the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not provided with any further information in relation to that claim. The Tribunal notes that in a [source] dated November 2014 that the [Tradition 1] stream of Sunni Islam has been involved in sectarian violence with Shia Muslims in Pakistan and that  violence has escalated in recent years and that sectarian violence between those two streams is an enduring problem in Pakistan and is linked to the broader, pervasive phenomenon of [Tradition1] militancy. The applicant in his statutory declarations of April 2013 and March 2014 did not refer specifically to his family in Pakistan following that particular stream of the Sunni faith. He did indicate that he came from a very conservative Muslim family. He gave evidence to the Tribunal about other family members being forced to participate in arranged marriages and he gave evidence about [Relative 1] who had not initially participated in an arranged marriage but who had been located and forced to return to the family and divorce his first wife and then participate in an arranged marriage. The applicant told the Tribunal that it was the tradition of his family to marry within the wider and extended family.

59.   The Tribunal, after considering the totality of the evidence and information, is prepared to accept that the applicant comes from a conservative Muslim family in Pakistan and that family participates in arranged marriages within the wider and extended family. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept the claim that the applicant's family follows the [Tradition 1] stream of the Sunni Islamic faith. The Tribunal's assessment of that stream of the Islamic faith is that the material discussed in the [source] dated November 2014 indicates that people who follow that stream have engaged in sectarian violence and particularly in relation to people of the Shia Islamic faith.

60.  The Tribunal after considering the totality of the evidence is prepared to accept that the applicant, because of his relationship with, and marriage to [Ms A], would be at risk of a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his religion and his membership of some particular social groups that are linked to his relationship with, and marriage to, [Ms A] if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal's  decision in relation to that aspect is based on its assessment that the applicant belongs to a strict and conservative Muslim family who have a tradition of participating in arranged marriages within the wider and extended family and that members of the family who stray from that strict and conservative approach in relation to religion would face a real chance of serious harm. The Tribunal has also considered country information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons and including articles and information provided       on the applicant's behalf. The Tribunal's overall assessment of the information that has been provided about the risk of harm to people who do not participate in forced or arranged marriages is that the risks are significantly greater for women than men. The Tribunal does note the BBC report that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons that in relation to honour killings in Pakistan in 2012 that family honour is closely tied to behaviour of females but that it is also common for families to kill the male partner. The Tribunal accepts based on the country information that has been referred to that males can also be at risk of harm in relation to honour killings in Pakistan. The Tribunal notes the country information contained in the Background Paper available to the Tribunal dated February 2014 that has been referred to, and that indicates that the vast majority of marriages in Pakistan are arranged, including those in minority religion communities. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was not aware of anyone in Pakistan who had not participated in an arranged marriage. In all the circumstances the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to his home area in Pakistan based on his claims in relation to religion and his membership of some particular social groups.

61.  The particular social groups linked to his relationship and marriage to [Ms A] are that the applicant could be perceived to have defied the enshrined and traditional tribal and cultural values by his marriage to [Ms A]. The Tribunal also believes that the applicant could be at risk of harm if he returned to his home area in Pakistan on the basis that he has entered into an interreligious and interracial relationship. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has defied family tradition in relation to arranged marriages and forced marriages and has engaged in a love relationship through his relationship with [Ms A]. The Tribunal also considers that in all the circumstances he could be perceived by his strict Muslim family to be an apostate and could be perceived to have converted to Catholicism because of his marriage to [Ms A]. The applicant told the Tribunal that his family was unaware of his marriage and relationship with [Ms A] but that if they found out he would be at risk of harm. He nominated the source of his fear of harm as being his family and relatives. The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returned to his home area in Karachi that the applicant's family could discover that the applicant has married [Ms A] and that in those circumstances harm could arise should his family seek to force him to participate in an arranged or forced marriage. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his mother several years ago had raised with him the possibility of marrying. In those circumstances the Tribunal considers that given the family's strict and conservative approach to arranged marriages that it is likely that if the applicant returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future that he may be forced to participate in an arranged marriage and that if he refused or disclosed his marriage to [Ms A] that there is a real chance that the applicant could face serious harm as a result. He told the Tribunal that he was not aware that any bride had been located or identified by his family for him to marry in Pakistan. However, in the Tribunal's view, his return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future could trigger such an arranged marriage or discussions with his family about an arranged marriage. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's claims that his [siblings] and [Relative 1] and other family members have had to participate in arranged marriages. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's claims that [Relative 1] was forced to divorce his wife to participate in an arranged marriage.

62.  The Tribunal also notes the information contained in the Background Paper on marriage, divorce and births and deaths in Pakistan dated February 2014 that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. That background paper indicates that in a study conducted by Pakistan's National commission for the status of women found that the overwhelming majority of marriages in Pakistan are arranged and also occur within the same caste, tribe or clan. According to the Background Paper the level or rate of arranged marriages varies between provinces and that according to the study Balochistan has the highest rate at 96% while Sindh province has the lowest rate at 24%. The applicant's family are located in Karachi in Sindh province.

63.  The applicant told the Tribunal he had not converted to Catholicism as a result of his relationship with [Ms A] and that he still practices his Sunni Islamic faith in Australia. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims that he could be at risk as a member of a particular social group in that he is a Pakistani male who has been educated in the West. The Tribunal has considered this claim but notes that the applicant was allowed by his family to come to Australia to undertake studies. The Tribunal also notes that the DFAT country report for Pakistan dated January 2016 in considering Western influences in Pakistan indicates that Western influences are pervasive in many parts of Pakistan and particularly in large urban centres. The Department assessment is that individuals are not subject to discrimination or violence on the basis of having spent time in the West. The Tribunal after assessing the totality of the evidence is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of harm on the basis of this particular claim in relation to that particular social group.

64.  The Tribunal also notes the country information contained in the background paper that indicates that the Pakistan police have a mixed record in relation to providing protection to couples at risk of harm by family members in relation to honour killings and arranged marriage issues. That information does not indicate to the Tribunal that the applicant could necessarily rely on effective state protection if he risked harm from his family or relatives because of his claims if he returned to his home area in Pakistan.

65.  The Tribunal has considered whether there are other areas of Pakistan where the applicant could relocate to avoid harm. The applicant essentially told the Tribunal that he could not relocate anywhere in Pakistan to avoid harm because he has family everywhere in Pakistan and he would be found. He also suggested during the hearing that because some members of his extended family had served in the Pakistani Army that they would be able to use their military connections to locate the applicant in Pakistan. The applicant also told the Tribunal that if he returned to Pakistan he would live with his family and obtain work in Karachi. That claim has to be seen in the context that the applicant claims to fear harm from his family and relatives on the basis of his claims. The Tribunal notes that the applicant's claims about some members of his extended family being able to use military connections to locate him anywhere in Pakistan was raised during the course of the tribunal hearing. The applicant in discussing how [Relative 1] was located said that he thought that another one of his [relatives] had used army connections or links to help locate [Relative 1] however the applicant was not able to provide any definite evidence about that aspect to the Tribunal other than to indicate that he thought that may have occurred. The Tribunal's overall assessment was that the applicant raised this very general claim when questioned by the Tribunal about why he could not relocate to avoid harm in Pakistan. He provided no definite or significant evidence to the Tribunal about the claim that extended family members may be able to use military links to locate the applicant in Pakistan other than to raise it as a general issue. In those circumstances the Tribunal does not accept the applicant's claims that he is at risk from extended family members who may be able to use military links to locate the applicant anywhere in Pakistan. The Tribunal, based on the lack of any detailed evidence, did not find the applicant's claims about that aspect to be credible.

66.  The applicant said in discussing relocation that because he is of Punjabi ethnic extraction that if he relocated somewhere else in Pakistan he could be at risk on that basis. He gave no developed evidence about that claim other than to make the claim that in his view that was an issue in terms of considering relocation. In that regard he indicated that he thought he would have a problem because of his Punjabi ethnic extraction if he relocated to the tribal areas or to Balochistan province in Pakistan. He also claimed that [Relative 1] had been found by relatives even though he had relocated. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence about [Relative 1’s] relocation to be somewhat confusing but that it appears to the Tribunal that [Relative 1] relocated to a border area in Sindh province but was located and forced to return and divorce his first wife and participate in an arranged marriage. [Relative 1] apparently also had children to his first wife. The applicant's representative also submitted that if the applicant wished to practice his religion elsewhere in Pakistan he would need to register and that could also cause him to be located anywhere in Pakistan. The Tribunal's overall assessment of the applicant's claims and evidence as to why he could not relocate in Pakistan to avoid harm was unconvincing.

67.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant was educated in Pakistan to year [grade] level and also undertook some [tertiary] studies in Pakistan. He undertook further studies in Australia in relation to [certain] studies and his last study in Australia was in 2011. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has been able to secure employment in Australia and he told the tribunal that after his family stopped providing him with financial assistance in 2009 he obtained employment and he has continued to be employed and he provides financial assistance and support to his wife and her family.

68.  The Tribunal notes the information contained in the DFAT country report for Pakistan dated January 2016 in relation to relocation. That report indicates that there is a high level of internal migration within Pakistan. The report notes that because of Pakistan's size and diversity there are viable relocation options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities and that internal relocation offers a degree of anonymity and the opportunity for victims to seek refuge from nonstate instigated discrimination or violence. The report indicates that many large urban centres such as Lahore and Islamabad are home to mixed ethnic and religious communities and offer a greater degree of anonymity and better opportunities for employment and access to services and state protection than rural or smaller urban areas.

69.  The Tribunal has considered the question of relocation for the applicant to avoid harm in his home area of Karachi. The Tribunal notes that if the applicant returned to Pakistan that he would be returning by himself as his wife told the Tribunal that she would not go to Pakistan because she feared harm. She said she might visit the applicant but would not relocate. As indicated the Tribunal notes that the applicant has been educated in Pakistan and has undertaken further studies in both Pakistan and in Australia and has been able to secure employment in Australia. The applicant came to Australia and was able to secure accommodation and employment in Australia. The Tribunal considers given the applicant's overall background that it would be reasonable for the Tribunal to assume that the applicant would be able to relocate to cities such as Lahore or Islamabad to avoid harm in Karachi. Those cities offer, as indicated in the DFAT country report, better opportunities for employment and access to services and state protection than smaller urban centres. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would face harm because of his Punjabi ethnic extraction in either of those large centres and the DFAT country report indicates that the population of Lahore is majority Punjabi.

70.  The Tribunal also notes the claims that have been made on the applicant's behalf that the DFAT country report provides a more optimistic view about the reduction in the overall crime rate in Pakistan then the information provided from other sources. That aspect of the country report has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons as has information provided on the applicant's behalf in relation to information provided by a bureau within the United States Department of State in relation to crime statistics in Pakistan. The Tribunal notes that the United States Department of State bureau information also refers to the activities of the  Sindh Ranger paramilitary groups in reducing some categories of crime. The DFAT country report indicates that the security situation varies between Pakistan's provinces and autonomous regions and that Punjab remained relatively free of sectarian and generalised violence and that the level of violence is greater in Sindh and Balochistan and some other provinces and the tribal areas. The Tribunal's overall assessment is that the DFAT country report, as indicated, provides comparatively recent and credible information in relation to a number of aspects relevant to the applicant's claims. The Tribunal after considering the country information in relation to criminal activity and violence in Pakistan accepts the DFAT country report information that while organised and violent crime occurs throughout Pakistan that the operations undertaken by the paramilitary ranger organisation and the Pakistani military operations in Karachi and FATA have substantially reduced the level of generalised and sectarian violence throughout Pakistan. In those circumstances the Tribunal accepts the DFAT country report information that indicates that because of Pakistan’s size and diversity there are viable relocation options for members of most ethnic and religious minorities and that internal relocation offers a degree of anonymity and the opportunity for victims to seek refuge from nonstate instigated discrimination and violence. The Tribunal also accepts information contained in the DFAT report indicates the security situation varies between Pakistan’s provinces and autonomous regions and that the Punjab remained relatively free of sectarian and generalised violence. The Tribunal also accepts information contained in the report that indicates that the Ranger operations in Karachi have substantially reduced the level of serious crime throughout Pakistan. The Tribunal considers that having had regard to the totality of the information and evidence before it that it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate to a larger urban area outside of Karachi and Sindh Province to avoid a risk of harm. The Tribunal also notes that the DFAT country report (paragraph 5.19) indicates that the security situation in Lahore remains better than many other places in Pakistan, with lower levels of generalised and sectarian violence than many other major population centres.

71.  The Tribunal considers that having regard to the totality of the evidence and the applicant's circumstances that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate if he were to return to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future to avoid harm in his family area of Karachi and outside Sindh Province in terms of any risk of harm from his family given the experience in relation to [Relative 1]. The Tribunal notes the applicant's claims that he cannot relocate and the reasons he advanced in support of that claim however the Tribunal believes that having had regard to the totality of the circumstances that it would be reasonable for it to expect that the applicant could relocate elsewhere in Pakistan to avoid harm and to relocate, as indicated, to a large urban area such as Lahore or Islamabad. The Tribunal also notes the DFAT country report indicates that the Department assessment is that there is a low level of official discrimination and a moderate level of societal discrimination against Pakistan’s Christian community. That aspect is relevant in the context of the applicant having married a Christian person (even though he has not converted) and who is also of [a certain] ethnic extraction and if there would be any risk of harm to him on that basis if he relocated elsewhere in Pakistan. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s wife does not intend to relocate to Pakistan if the applicant returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal after having considered the totality of the evidence and country information does not accept the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his marriage if he were to relocate in Pakistan. The Tribunal also notes that the  DFAT country report indicates that individuals are not subject to discrimination or violence on the basis that they had spent time in Western countries.

72.  The Tribunal considers that in relation to relocation the applicant and his wife would also seek to have the applicant obtain another category of  Visa in order for him to return to Australia and resume living with his wife and her family. The Tribunal notes that the applicant and his wife met online and conducted a relationship online before they physically met. In those circumstances the Tribunal believes that the applicant and his wife would be able to maintain their relationship online if he was physically in Pakistan.

73.  The Tribunal , after considering the applicant's claims both individually and cumulatively, does not accept that the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm from his family and relatives if he relocated to another large urban area such as Lahore or Islamabad if he returned to Pakistan either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

74.  The Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan that he faces a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims and his evidence and the submissions made on his behalf and country information that has been referred to and considered elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal has referred elsewhere in these reasons to its assessment of the applicant's claims and the evidence and its assessment of relevant country information. The Tribunal has considered the definition of significant harm contained in the Act. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims that he fears harm if he returns to Pakistan on the basis of his religion and on the basis of his claimed membership of a number of particular social groups. In essence, as indicated elsewhere in these reasons, the applicant's core claim to fear harm is based around his relationship and marriage to [Ms A]. He claims to fear harm from his conservative Muslim family and relatives on the basis of his religion and his membership of a particular social groups. The Tribunal believes that it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to relocate in Pakistan to avoid harm if he were to return to Pakistan.

75.  Given the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of Pakistan where there would not be a real risk that he would suffer significant harm there is taken not to be a risk that he will suffer significant harm in Pakistan.

76.  The Tribunal considers there is taken not to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in Pakistan because of any criminal activity because the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal is not satisfied on its assessment of the totality of the evidence and country information that has been discussed that if the applicant relocates from his home area of Karachi and Sindh Province to another part of Pakistan such as Lahore or Islamabad that he faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on the basis of his claims and including his claim that he would have difficulty relocating because of his Punjabi ethnic extraction. The Tribunal considers for the reasons that have been considered and discussed that it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate elsewhere in Pakistan from Karachi and Sindh Province.

Overall Summary

77.  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).

78.  Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

79.  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

80.  The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection Visa.

James Jolliffe
Member