1604429 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Pakistan. The applicant, a member of the Burki tribe and a Sunni Muslim, claimed to fear persecution from the Taliban upon return to Pakistan. The applicant alleged that he had been targeted due to his ethnicity, his work as a polio vaccinator, and a dispute over his wedding dowry. The applicant arrived in Australia in March 2013 and applied for a protection visa in April 2014. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on membership in a particular social group, whether the persecution was of a kind that engaged Australia's non-refoulement obligations, and whether effective state protection was available or if internal relocation was a viable option. The AAT was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant Ministerial Directions and country information.

The AAT found that the applicant was a member of particular social groups, including "polio vaccinator in Pakistan," "polio vaccinator of Burki ethnicity," and "polio vaccinator from South Waziristan." The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that he had been targeted by the Taliban for his work as a polio vaccinator, which was perceived by the Taliban as anti-Islamic and a Western conspiracy, and also for his Burki ethnicity and the dowry incident. The AAT concluded that the persecution suffered was uncontrollable by Pakistani authorities and that the government was unable to protect the applicant. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that state protection would be available or that internal relocation to another part of Pakistan would be safe.

Consequently, the AAT was satisfied that the applicant faced a well-founded fear of persecution and that Australia had protection obligations towards him. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with directions that the applicant satisfied section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, and that his wife and child satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of their family unit.