1608296 (Refugee)

The applicant, Mr [A], sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether Mr [A] was entitled to complementary protection in Australia, given his circumstances and claims of potential harm in Pakistan. The matter was heard by Luke Hardy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr [A] met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia, Mr [A] would suffer significant harm. A secondary issue arose regarding Mr [A]'s abandonment of his claims for protection based on fear of harm from the Taliban, in favour of seeking Ministerial intervention on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Tribunal considered Mr [A]'s original claims of fear of harm from the Taliban in Pakistan, noting that country information indicated significant progress in restoring law and order in his home province and that relocation to other cities would be safe. Crucially, Mr [A] indicated at the hearing that he was abandoning his claims for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. He acknowledged the improved stability in Pakistan and stated that the risk of significant harm was not "real". Instead, he sought Ministerial intervention based on the hardship his Australian wife and child would suffer if he were required to return to Pakistan. The Tribunal also noted that it would not rely on certain internal working documents protected by a non-disclosure certificate, as these were deemed irrelevant to the decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr [A] a protection visa. While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's circumstances, including his marriage to an Australian citizen and the birth of their Australian citizen child, it found that Mr [A] had abandoned his claims for complementary protection. The Tribunal indicated it would refer the matter to the Department, presumably in relation to the request for Ministerial intervention.