1603699 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan and former member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), sought a protection visa. He claimed to fear persecution in Pakistan due to his past involvement with the MQM, alleging that his family members had been killed or tortured, and that Urdu-speaking people, like himself, faced discrimination and were perceived as Indian agents. He also expressed fear of retribution from the MQM for attempting to leave the party and from law enforcement agencies due to his association with the organisation. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, nationality, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. This latter criterion required the Tribunal to be satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Pakistan, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of persecution, including his membership in the MQM's student branch, his fear of the MQM for leaving the party, and his assertion that Urdu speakers are discriminated against and targeted by authorities. It also noted his claims of being forced to collect extortion money and making speeches against law enforcement agencies. However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion. Furthermore, after considering the evidence and the relevant provisions of the Act, including definitions of significant harm and the possibility of effective protection measures or reasonable relocation, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Pakistan.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards him under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.