1616672 (Refugee)

1616672 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6115 (22 July 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1616672
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan
MEMBER:Denise Connolly
DATE:22 July 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Statement made on 22 July 2019 at 1:46pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – imputed political opinion – fears harm from Taliban – social group – family – claims occupation put him at risk – inconsistent evidence – credibility issues – manufactured claims – previous visa application refused – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 22 September 2015 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants, who claim to be citizens of Pakistan, applied for the visas on 17 March 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicants are not persons to whom Australia has protection obligations.
There is a purported s.438 certificate dated 14 October 2016 which purports to certify that folios 210 to 212 and 259 should not be disclosed because it would be contrary to the public interest as the folios contain ‘information relating to an internal working document and business affairs’. The information in folios 210 to 212 are case notes about the business sponsorship application made by the first named applicant’s sponsor for his [temporary] visa application. The Tribunal is of the view there is nothing recorded in this information that would give rise to a concern that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Folio 259 is a template document entitled Disclosure Decision Checklist which records that there are no s.437 or s.438(1) related documents/information on the file. There is nothing in this folio that would give rise to a concern that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Having considered the purported s.438 certificate and the reasons given for why disclosure would be contrary to the public interest ‘because the aforementioned folios contain information relating to an internal working document and business affairs’, the Tribunal is not satisfied the reasons given properly identify a basis for public interest immunity. Accordingly the Tribunal finds the certificate is not valid.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence provided to the Department
When making the visa application the first named applicant (the applicant) made the following claims. He was born [in] Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. He is a citizen of Pakistan. He does not have the right to reside in any other country. He speaks Urdu and English. His religion is Islam. He married the second named applicant [in] June 2007 in Karachi, Pakistan. He and his wife have two children (the third and fourth named applicants), [one] born on [date] and another born on [date]. At the time of application his wife and children resided in Australia and his mother and siblings resided in Pakistan. His father is deceased. He provided a copy of his Pakistani passport issued [in] 2011 obtained through normal procedures. His occupation was [Occupation 1]. He first arrived in Australia [in] October 2012 as the holder of a [student] visa which was granted on 3 August 2012.
Regarding his residential address in Pakistan, the applicant claims that from April 1979 to February 2007 he resided at [Address 1], Karachi and from February 2007 to October 2012 he resided at [Address 2], [Neighbourhood 1] Karachi ([Address 2]).
Regarding his employment in Pakistan, the applicant claims from November 2002 to September 2012 he was an [Occupation 2] at [Employer 1] in Karachi Pakistan. He has worked as a [Occupation 3] at a [Employer 2] in Australia.
Regarding his education in Pakistan, the applicant claims he went to [School 1] and [School 2] in Karachi. He claims he completed a Bachelor and a Master of [Subject 1] at the [University 1] and an [Subject 2] at [University 2], Karachi.
When making the visa application the applicant provided a written statement in which he makes the following claims. He lived with his parents at [Address 2], [Neighbourhood 1], Karachi in Pakistan. The Muslims in his area, mostly modern, did not follow the orthodox old Muslim customs which were being reintroduced by the Therik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a banned terrorist organisation that wants to stop Muslim women studying and working, and force Muslim men to wear Salvarkamis and grow long beards. The TTP targeted his village and Abbas Town.
The applicant claims that in a nearby area ‘[Suburb 1]’, the TTP and other militants infiltrated and settled amongst the Pathans and refugees. The militants wanted to take control of the area and introduce Sharia Law and traditional Islamic customs. The Muslims in his area objected to this and as a result many people were killed by terrorists. However they opposed the TTP and worked together to save their neighbours from the terrorists who were slowly taking control of the area. As a consequence mullahs from North West Frontier Province (NWFP) were brought in to educate the Muslims in his area to follow the TTP. Initially the Muslims refused to listen to the mullahs' advice but when the mullahs met with the local Muslim elders they brainwashed them into believing the UN and US were against Islam and were planning to take control of Pakistan by destroying the TTP.
The applicant claims when he was at university, the TTP militants brainwashed, abducted and recruited youths for military training. While at university he was approached by radicals Muslims who forced him to move to the Tribal Area for military training to fight US forces.
The applicant claims the Shia Muslims in his area were being targeted by the TTP, Sippah-e- Sabbah (SSP) and Laskar-e-Jhanvi (LeJ) militants. He and others had to be vigilant to save the Shia Muslims living in his area.
The applicant claims after completing the Master of [Subject 1], he was offered a position at [Employer 1] where he was ultimately promoted to [Occupation 2]. He was in charge of the remittance department where he checked financial activities, including daily monitoring of incoming transactions. He was asked to monitor and block any transactions where terrorist groups were involved. While he was monitoring these transactions he found many terrorists and mullahs were involved in these transactions, from overseas and within Pakistan. He was very particular in blocking these transactions as he was aware that mullahs were involved in illegal business transactions involving many lakhs of rupees. He had to act with caution when it came to the mullahs' accounts, as [Employer 1] did not want to lose its reputation and business because of the mullahs. [Employer 1] wanted him to block transactions when it was apparent they were illegal. He blocked many TTP and the mullah transactions. Most of the mullahs who received funds were from the NWFP.
The applicant claims when he was promoted within the bank, other employees were jealous of his success and he started to receive death threats from unknown people. He reported the threats to his manager who told him not to entertain the calls. He started to fear for his safety as the other employees started to argue with him. He had to check their work in detail as he thought they could be involved in processing the funds belonging to the mullahs and terrorists without blocking them. One of the employees phoned him stating that the applicant could be dealt with severely for being rude to them. A manager warned him that unless he worked with the employees with mutual understanding he would face problems in the future. When the applicant questioned this he was told that he would find out sooner or later. He was concerned about his safety and decided to leave Pakistan to further his studies.
The applicant claims in July 2012 while he was on the way home from the bank at night, from nowhere, four men stopped him and asked him whether he is [a certain person]. When he kept silent, they dragged him into a van and took him to an old Mosque situated in a remote area. They took him into the Mosque and two mullahs asked him for his full name which he gave. The men beat him in the stomach and on the back. They said that they knew everything about him and his family. They asked him whether he blocked funds going into their account and when he said he had no idea who they were, they beat him and he started to bleed. One of the mullahs told him he had to work for them from inside the bank and had to receive all the moneys sent under their names. He was afraid to ask their names. The mullahs told him they planned to receive millions of rupees from [Country 1] in their names and their leaders’ name and that he should not block those funds. They said that they would give all the details including the names in which the funds would be transferred. They warned that if he tried to pass this information to the Bank and block the funds, he could be taken away and killed. When the mullahs left the place they gave him a note with the names in which the funds would be transferred.
The applicant claims he was taken back through another route which he could not figure out as it was dark. When he was dropped in front of his house, the van sped so fast he could not read the number plate. That same night police officers came to his home stating they knew what happened. The officers said that if he failed to comply with the mullahs' orders they would arrest him for working for the TTP in illegal smuggling. They said that they never act against the mullahs’ orders and if he wished to lead a peaceful and safe life, he had to act according to those orders. They warned that if he ever attempted to complain about them or the mullahs he could be shot and killed for being a terrorist trying to escape. In fear, he agreed to their requests. When the police officers left his wife asked him what was going on. He told her that if he did not flee the country he would be killed or end up in the prison.
The applicant claims his agent advised him to travel overseas first and call his wife later. He and his wife were worried about the situation so he decided to leave the country at the next opportunity and to get his wife and children later. When he arrived in Australia he was concerned about his wife and [children] as the mullahs could hurt them in revenge. Luckily the agent assisted him to obtain their visas. After arriving in Australia he told his brother what happened before he fled. His brother told him to study hard and apply for permanent residence after he completed his studies. He had done well in his studies in Pakistan and he was confident he would study hard and obtain permanent residence. He was told that if he lodged the protection visa application he would not be able to leave Australia for any reason. His brother advised him not to apply for refugee status as he would not be able to travel back to Pakistan. His mother's health condition was not good after his father’s death. His wife was afraid to travel back to Pakistan as she had witnessed a bomb blast before she departed Pakistan. She refused to travel back and pleaded with him to apply for permanent residence instead. However his brother told him that his mother was very sick and that he should return to Pakistan as soon as he could. He did not have any problems travelling back except for his fear of the police and mullahs.
The applicant claims when he returned to Pakistan (in February 2015) he rarely left the house except in his brother’s car. However he faced a problem when the neighbours invited his family for a feast. They asked his brother if they could use a couple of their rooms for guests. He was worried that the neighbours would be shocked to find him there with his mother. When the neighbours saw him in the house they invited him to the feast and inquired about his wife and children. He was then shocked when the police officers entered his house asking for him. The officers took him to the police station, beat him and asked why he fled the country without letting them know. The mullahs turned up and took him to the same Mosque where he was previously beaten. The mullah said that he lost [a large sum of] rupees because of the applicant and that he had to compensate him. He told them he had no money. The mullah said that he had to earn the same amount of money. He agreed to in order to escape. When he asked him what sort of work he had to do he said that had to go with him and his men to his residence where he would be shown. They asked him whether he planned to leave the country again and he said that his mother was seriously ill so he would be staying permanently. They asked about his wife and children and he told them that they were with his in-laws. The mullah believed him and asked him to visit the Mosque the following morning. At this point the applicant decided to flee Pakistan. His brother took him to his friend's place near the airport to wait until his flight was booked. His brother phoned him stating that the police officers came in search of him. His brother told the police that he had flown out of Pakistan.
The applicant claims he then decided to make the protection visa application before it was too late. He had a case with the MRT (a [temporary] visa refusal) and he was advised that it was not successful. He had no other choice but to apply for protection.
The applicant provided with the visa application a number of articles relating to various incidents in Pakistan in the period 2013 to 2015. These articles were discussed with the applicant during the delegate’s interview. The Tribunal has read the articles and raised their relevance with the applicant at the hearing.
The second, third and fourth named applicants did not make their own claims for protection and seek to rely on the applicant’s claims.
Evidence provided to the Tribunal
The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. It includes evidence given by the applicant during his interview with the delegate on 5 August 2015. The Tribunal has listened to the recording of the interview and, while not a transcript, it is satisfied the information recorded in the delegate’s decision record reflects the oral evidence given at the interview. It also includes details of the applicant’s migration history.
The applicant’s migration history
The delegate’s decision record sets out the applicant’s migration history. It records that he applied for a [student] visa on 15 May 2012 in which he declared his immediate family to be his parents [and siblings]. As discussed in the interview he did not provide his own family registration certificate (including his wife and children); he provided that of his [brother]. The applicant’s [student] visa was granted on 3 August 2012. The applicant entered Australia [in] October 2012 as the holder of a student visa effective until 15 March 2014. However [in] May 2013 it was recorded that the applicant had breached visa condition 8202 because he had failed to enrol.
The delegate records that on 26 June 2013 the applicant lodged a [second temporary] visa application having been sponsored to work in the nominated occupation [Occupation 4] by [Employer 2]. The related sponsorship application was refused as the delegate found that the position of [Occupation 4] had been created merely to facilitate the applicant remaining in Australia and that it had been embellished in order to meet requirements for nomination approval. On 15 November 2013 the sponsor lodged another nomination application for the position of [Occupation 5]. That nomination application was refused on 21 February 2014, the delegate finding that the position had been created only to secure the applicant’s stay in Australia. On 13 March 2014 the applicant sought review by the MRT of the decision to refuse his [temporary] visa application. On 28 January 2015 he lodged a Bridging [visa] application in order to travel to Pakistan. [In] February 2015 he departed Australia while the second, third and fourth named applicants remained in Australia. He returned to Australia [later in] February 2015. On 10 March 2015 the MRT finalised his review application, affirming the delegate’s decision to refuse the [temporary] visa application. On 17 March 2015 the applicant lodged his protection visa application.
Issues raised by the delegate
The applicant was interviewed by the delegate on 5 August 2015. She noted that the applicant had provided a different Pakistani address in his protection visa application to that recorded on his and the second named applicant’s Pakistani National Identity Cards (NIC). The applicant claimed that he was required to provide a permanent address on his NIC, so used his brother’s address. He claimed that their address in Pakistan as at May 2010 was a temporary address, a rental property, at [Address 3] Karachi East. He claimed however that his wife had always lived at [Address 2] and never anywhere else. He indicated the second named applicant was [details deleted]. He claimed the apartment at [Address 2] was affected. He claimed this is the property where he grew up and that his mother continues to live there. It is a rental property. The only property owned by family members is at [Address 1], Karachi East.
The applicant told the delegate that his mother lives with his brother [and] that one of his brothers [died] [in] March 2014.
The applicant acknowledged that some of the media reports provided with the visa application were not relevant. With respect to the articles about the MQM he acknowledged that his family did not have any relationship with any political party. He indicated the articles regarding bomb blasts were references to blasts against people in Karachi who do not follow the Taliban. With respect to the claim that he was recruited by the Taliban and deployed to a tribal area for military training, the applicant stated that this was not true. He also indicated there was no incident where he actually protected Shias. He indicated his only support of Shias was when clerics spoke at the mosque against Shia, he and others did not do so.
The applicant gave evidence regarding his claims of past harm as a result of his employment. He indicated that as a [Occupation 2] he was receiving remittances from around the world. The TTP had accounts with [his employer] because initially they were not blocked. Then the head of the bank told the applicant to block certain transactions. He was sent him a list of names to block if remittances were received. He gave the delegate a few names as examples. He was instructed to not process any TTP accounts but to send them to Compliance at head office for scrutiny. He did as instructed and blocked payments.
The delegate asked the applicant about the first threat he received. He indicated a manager, [Mr A], threatened him and told him not to block the payments or he would be in trouble. This was around March 2012. He observed [Mr A] many times ‘sitting with them’ (the Taliban). The delegate asked the applicant if he reported [Mr A]. He stated that he did but his manager in [Section 1] told him there was no evidence against [Mr A] and to ignore the threat.
The applicant was asked by the delegate what [Section 1’s acronym] stood for. He said it was the [Name 1]. The delegate later recorded that it stood for [Name 2].

The delegate asked about the applicant’s claims to have been harmed. The applicant claimed that in July 2012[1] he was kidnapped and beaten. He was instructed that funds would be transferred from [Country 1] and should not be blocked. The delegate raised with the applicant that this level of activity and knowledge would have been significant, beyond the level of [Occupation 2]. She questioned why he was not interviewed by investigators in Pakistan who she believed would have been interested. She also explained to him that it seemed implausible that he would not have escalated this information with [Section 1]. He stated he was scared for his wife and [children]. The delegate put to the applicant that she found it implausible that he would not have put this information to the authorities after his wife and children arrived in Australia. He said he was scared for his family in Pakistan.
[1] The delegate has recorded that the applicant stated this happened in August 2012 however the Tribunal has listened to the recording of the interview and the applicant stated that he was kidnapped and beaten in July 2012.
The delegate raised the issue of delay with the applicant. She asked him why he did not apply for protection immediately on arriving in Aust if it was the case that he was threatened, abducted and beaten in Pakistan as he claimed. She noted that even when his wife and children came to Australia he did not apply for protection. She noted that he did not apply for protection until his [temporary] visa application was refused and that it appeared he made the protection visa application as an application of last resort. The applicant indicated he was confident his [temporary] visa would be granted. He also claimed his brother told him to go back to see their mother.
The delegate raised with the applicant her concern that he returned to Pakistan given his claims to fear the police. He claimed he was in hiding at a friend’s house for [days]. He claimed the police went to his brother’s house looking for him after he returned to Australia.
The delegate suggested the applicant could relocate to Islamabad given he is a highly skilled and educated with experience in the financial sector. The applicant claimed it would not be easy because he left the bank without resigning and they terminated his employment. He claimed he would not be able to get any work in the banking sector because the Taliban would kill him. Also his wife witnessed the bomb blast and does not want to go back.
The delegate did not accept that the applicant was harmed in any way in Pakistan. She did not accept that he was of interest to the authorities or was personally targeted or harmed by the TTP. She formed the view there were a number of concerns regarding his credibility. She found that he misrepresented his academic record in Australia and that he did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in his visa application. She found his return to Karachi in February 2015 cast doubt on his claims to have been harmed. She did not accept his narrative about the events on his return and formed the view it was rehearsed. She noted there was no evidence to support his claim that he held a long term position in [Employer 1] in the capacity claimed or that he had any relationship with the bank. She noted his email address used with his student visa application was [specified] (not an [Employer 1] email address) and his financial evidence related to investments held at other financial institutions. While she accepted he had knowledge of [Section 1], his evidence on what it stood for was inconsistent with information on [Section 1]’s website. She did not accept he was employed in a senior capacity at [Employer 1] or that attempts were made by the TTP to recruit him for criminal financial activity.
The delegate also noted that the address at which the applicant claimed the second named applicant lived and witnessed the bombing was not the address on the applicant’s or second named applicant’s NIC.
Overall the delegate was not satisfied the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the protection visa application. Nor did she accept the applicant’s evidence regarding harm he allegedly experienced at the hands of followers of a mullah in Karachi, or that he was employed in a senior capacity at [Employer 1] or that there were attempts to recruit him by the TTP for its [operations]. She did not accept that he was physically harmed in any way in Pakistan or that he has a heightened profile anywhere in Pakistan as a [Occupation 2] who refused to assist the TTP with financial operations. She formed the view there was no more than a remote chance the applicant would face persecution in Pakistan if he returned in the foreseeable future.
New information provided to the Tribunal
Prior to the hearing the applicant provided new information to the Tribunal in which he claims that, when making his protection visa application there was information he did not provide. He now claims that through his experience at [Employer 1] he had regular contact with international businessmen, billionaires and rich entrepreneurs who transferred money from [Country 1] and other Muslim and Arab countries. He was warned by [Employer 1] officials not to leak any information about third parties transferring large sums into [the bank]. He claims Mr [A] was one of the people who would transfer money into [Employer 1] accounts. He visited Karachi frequently to have meetings with [employees] including the applicant. The applicant claims that when Mr [A] attempted to transferred money, from [Bank 1] (in [Country 1]) to mullahs in Pakistan, he blocked the remittances. Mr [A] questioned the applicant about his accounts, but the applicant did not tell Mr [A] about his blocking the transactions. The applicant’s senior bank manager warned the applicant to be careful when dealing with Mr [A].
The applicant claims he came to know from other banks in Pakistan that Mr [A] was [Occupation 6] from Pakistan into Arab countries. He claims Mr [A] asked the applicant to work for him, controlling his bank accounts, so he did not need to travel to Karachi so frequently. The applicant refused, knowing he was a drug dealer. Mr [A] notified other [employees] at different banks about his contact with the applicant. Those [employees] warned the applicant that, if he refused to work for Mr [A], he would face difficulties in the future.
The applicant claims that he first left Pakistan because he did not like rich businessmen and drug lords ruining Pakistan. However when he heard his mother was sick he had to go back to Pakistan with the hope that the mullahs and TTP had forgotten him. However, when he was abducted by the police officers, the mullah and the TTP, he realised his mistake.
The applicant claims around January 2017, his brother phoned him to inform him that Mr [A], along with the mullah, had requested the applicant’s brother sell his business to them. The applicant informed his brother not to deal with Mr [A] because of his drug background. The applicant was later informed by his second brother that his first brother was arrested by police officers on drug charges. The applicant was concerned about his brother because he believed Mr [A] was behind the arrest. His brother was held in detention for [months]. When he was released, he called the applicant explaining who was behind his arrest. Apparently the mullah and the police demanded his brother either sell his store to Mr [A] or run the business of selling drugs for them.
The applicant claims, based on his brother’s phone call, that if the applicant returned to Pakistan and worked for Mr [A], his brother could be spared. The mullah told the applicant’s brother that the applicant had cheated him twice and that his men are watching the applicant in Australia and they will know if the applicant returns to Pakistan. The mullah told the applicant’s brother that they feared the applicant would pass to Australian authorities their financial transaction information and Mr [A]’s details.
The applicant claims that the mullah warned that his men could hurt the applicant’s brothers if he ever worked against them or passed any information about them to anyone in any part of the world. His brother was released after he agreed to work for them in his shop. His brother was continuing with his usual business, but the mullah and the TTP men were using his shop for drug trade as well. His brother fears that if the Rangers or the Pakistani Intelligence officers caught him with drugs at his shop, he could be sentenced to prison. The applicant’s brother was planning to leave the country in the future. He told the applicant that Mr [A] had bought many businesses in his area and had expanded the drug trade to all parts of Pakistan. The applicant’s brother told him not to return to Pakistan because he could end up working for Mr [A] and that would tarnish his reputation and future.
The applicant is concerned that if this information is leaked it could be detrimental to his family members in Pakistan.
The applicant claims [Employer 1]’s [City 1] branch was closed due to money laundering and illegal money transactions. [Details deleted].
The applicant claims he worked for [Mr B] (his [sponsor]) in Australia controlling his financial transactions. However [Mr B] let him down when [Employer 2] took over the business. His wife urged him to lodge the protection visa application immediately and, realising the dangerous situation he was facing in Pakistan, he lodged the application.
Hearing on 20 June 2019
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 20 June 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal took evidence from the first and second named applicants. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a number of documents including the birth certificate of his [child], born on [date], a copy of the applicant’s Pakistani passport issued [in] 2018, the passports of his wife and [children] and an article about [Employer 1] from the [publication] dated [indicating] that the [City 1] [Details deleted].
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his reasons for coming to Australia. He indicated he came to Australia in October 2012 as the holder of a [temporary] visa to study for a [Subject 3]. He started the course in December 2012. He did not complete the course and ceased study in about May 2013. He applied for a [different temporary] visa in June 2013. He did not complete the course because his brother who had been sponsoring his study passed away in April 2013 in Karachi. He had only paid the fees for the first semester. His boss in Australia then offered to sponsor him for a [different temporary] visa. The applicant already held a Master of [Subject 1] and an [degree in Subject 2]. His study was undertaken in both English and Urdu. The applicant then added that his main purpose for leaving Pakistan was for security reasons.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his family in Pakistan. He indicated his father [died] and his mother passed [away]. He has 2 brothers living in Karachi; [Mr C] is [retired] and the other, [Mr D], has an [store]. They both have children. All of those relatives reside in Karachi. [Mr C] lives in [Neighbourhood 2] where he moved [a number of] years ago. Before that he lived [in] [Neighbourhood 3].
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his address in Pakistan before coming to Australia. He indicated that he always lived in [Address 2]. That was his parents’ home, a [apartment]. When he married, his wife moved to that apartment and his children also lived there. After he came to Australia, his wife continued to live in [Address 2] along with his brother [Mr D] who still lives there.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate had raised a concern that the applicant had not disclosed his true family composition at the time of his student visa application, when he provided the family registration certificate for his brother. It asked why he had not provided his own family registration certificate. The applicant indicated that his [brother] [sponsored] him. The Department asked for evidence that he was related to his [brother] so they provided that family registration certificate. He claimed that he did disclose that he was married with children when he made the student visa application.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate recorded that the applicant had given a different address in the student visa application. It asked why he gave a different address in the student visa application. The applicant indicated that [Address 2] was a rental property so he gave the [different address] in the visa application because his brother owned that property. The Tribunal raised its concern as to why he would do that. The applicant claimed that they used to miss their mail at [Address 2] apartment so they used his brother’s address when his brother moved there in the 1980s. The Tribunal noted that in the protection visa application he indicated he lived for a period at a different address referring to the address provided in the visa application for the period 1979 to 2007[Address 1] Karachi. It explained that this might raise concerns about the reliability of his evidence about where he and his wife had lived in Karachi. It explained that it may form the view the applicant has been using the [Address 2] address to support the claim that his wife had witnessed [an incident].
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s written application included a claim that he was recruited by militants and forced to do military training in a tribal area. It asked if this was the case. The applicant admitted that this was not true. He claimed however that militants used to pressure him but he refused. He claimed he did not write the visa application and that his lawyer must have made a mistake. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had signed every page of the written statement and that he is able to speak, read and write in English. The applicant acknowledged that he read the whole statement and signed it but thought he must have misunderstood.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided articles about the MQM with his visa application and asked why they were provided. The applicant indicated that his lawyer had attached them to the application as a reference. He denied having any dealings with politics in Pakistan.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had claimed that he had to protect Shias and be vigilant in saving the Shias living in his area. It asked why he had included that in his written claims. He indicated that he did do this when local clerics used to ‘tell us the wrong things’ about Shia, as he would say that it was not true. This occurred in general conversations but later there was the big bomb blast.
The Tribunal asked about the timing of the [incident]. He indicated that it occurred about 4 years ago. His [child] and wife witnessed it. The Tribunal asked about his wife’s proximity to the [incident]. He indicated that she was in the shop under the [Address 2] [building]. The [incident occurred] in the same street as the [Address 2] apartment. He thought this occurred in February 2013 and then she came to Australia in March 2013. However she was already coming to Australia because he had booked her tickets in the second week of February. As the situation was getting worse in Pakistan, he applied for her and his children’s visas. Initially he applied in August 2012 but they were refused because he had not commenced studying. He started the course in December 2012 and she was able to get the visa. The Tribunal asked what the applicant had referred to when he indicated “the situation was getting worse”. He indicated he was referring to the events in July 2012 when he was kidnapped by mullahs and beaten. The Tribunal noted he had already applied for his student visa by July 2012. He indicated he applied for the student visa in February 2012 because he had already received threats.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his employment at [Employer 1]. He indicated he commenced working at the bank in November 2002 as a [Occupation 7]. He was made a [Occupation 8] in 2006 and in 2008 he was promoted to the position of [Occupation 2]. He was promoted again in 2011 to the position of [Occupation 9]. He [undertook a certain task] and looked after remittances. There were thousands of remittances every day. He received alerts about certain remittances, those of [a specified sum] or more. He would check with the sending bank whether they had deposited the money. There were about 40 to 50 of these larger remittances per day. He referred to Vostro[2] accounts and explained that when his bank received notifications of transfers, he would contact the sending bank to see if the money had been deposited. This was to ensure that the money would be sent and was not being laundered. He referred to various [Section 1] forms and processes. He indicated that he was involved in sensitive work that only capable people were allowed to do. The Tribunal asked where he worked. He indicated he worked in the [Employer 1] head office about 25 km from his home. It asked how he travelled to and from work. He said he drove to work and parked in the building. It took him up to 2 hours depending on the traffic.
[2] “A vostro account is an account a correspondent bank holds on behalf of another bank. These accounts are an essential aspect of correspondent banking in which the bank holding the funds acts as custodian for or manages the account of a foreign counterpart.” accessed to 20 June 2019
The Tribunal noted that it had not seen documentary evidence supporting his claims to have been employed at [Employer 1]. He provided to the Tribunal copies of letters given to him in relation to his employment. The letters are on [Employer 1] letterhead. They confirm that he was originally employed on a contract basis but in January 2008 was made permanent. In June 2011 he was promoted to the position [Occupation 9]. In March 2012 he was appraised and his performance was rated at ‘A-‘. He was congratulated for his admirable achievement and advised that salary review would be communicated to him through his pay advice. He received a similar letter from the head of Human Resources, dated [July] 2011 when he was awarded a performance [bonus].
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the email address referred to in the delegate’s decision record used by the applicant in his student visa application, [specified]. It noted that this was not an [Employer 1] email address. The applicant claimed that this was the address of his education agent. The company he used to get his student visa was called [the same name as Section 1]. It is not his email address.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate had asked the applicant what [Section 1’s acronym] stood for and that he had said it was the [Name 1] which was incorrect. The applicant was able to tell the Tribunal that it stands for [Name 2]. The Tribunal asked why the applicant was not able to give the delegate the correct name at the time of his interview in 2016. He indicated that [Employer 1] had an [book] with the name he provided to the delegate on the front. He added however that the description he gave was close to the correct description.
The Tribunal noted the applicant has claimed that he became aware of overseas transactions between mullahs and terrorists, including members of the TTP. It asked the applicant how he knew that the account holders were mullahs and TTP members. He claimed that he knew that they were the accounts of TTP members because their names had been previously associated with TTP commercial bank accounts. He indicated that prior to about 2010 they had instructions to allow their remittances. Later [Country 2] put pressure on Pakistan to stop the remittances. He indicated that the TTP accounts were closed but they opened new accounts in TTP members’ own names. The Tribunal asked how he knew that the accounts were held by TTP members. He indicated that he was given a list of 40 to 50 names from head office in about 2011. The Tribunal asked how he knew that accounts were in the names of mullahs. The applicant indicated that there were particular mullahs who contacted him and most of them had been in contact with the TTP. The Tribunal asked how he knew this. He indicated that they were 4 or 5 local mullahs who contacted him about remittances. He believes they were members of the TTP, on the receiving end of the remittances. However he had blocked them. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew that monies were coming from overseas terrorists. He indicated that they were drug dealers, big people like [Mr A].

The Tribunal asked the applicant when he first became aware of the TTP transactions. He indicated that the payments were not illegal until 2010 and he was instructed to block the transactions in about 2011. He was told by [a senior employee] [Mr E] to block the payments. He called the applicant and his manager secretly sometime after April 2011and gave them a list of names to block.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it had seen country information recording that the TTP was banned on 25 August 2008 and all of its bank accounts and assets were frozen[3]. The Tribunal explained that it may not accept that TTP continued to hold bank accounts in 2010 and was still attempting to transfer monies in 2012 as he has claimed. The applicant stated there were still accounts operating in 2010. He claimed politicians are lying and it was only after pressure from the US that the government actually banned the TTP.
[3] Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Dawn, 19 January 2012, accessed 21 June 2019 “On August 25, 2008, Pakistan banned the group, calling it a terrorist organisation and froze its assets, and also banned it from making media appearances.”
The Tribunal noted the applicant had claimed that in July 2012 he was injured during an incident. It asked him about the incident and injuries he suffered. The applicant stated that he was beaten in [several different parts of his body]. His mouth was [injured]. He might have had [another injury]. The Tribunal asked if he was seen by a doctor. He indicated that a neighbour [who was a doctor] examined him. The Tribunal asked about the circumstances of that examination. He indicated that when the people who kidnapped him left him at his house, his brother called his friend who was a doctor. The Tribunal asked what time the doctor examined him. He indicated it was between 10 PM and 11 PM that night. He claimed that the doctor came straight away because he lived in the next building. He did not know the doctor because he does not know many people in the apartment block. The Tribunal noted that he had lived there all his life and questioned why he would not know his neighbours. He indicated that he worked from morning to late at night and most of the people who lived in the area, who he knew, had left. The Tribunal asked about the outcome of the doctor’s examination. He stated that the doctor said his injuries were not that bad and he only needed painkillers. He indicated that if he had bleeding he should go for an ultrasound.
The applicant then stated that the doctor was there at the same moment as the police came. His brother asked the police to wait while the doctor examined him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had a mobile phone at the time and he indicated that he did. It asked if his wife had called him that night to check on his whereabouts. He did not think she called him. The Tribunal questioned why she would not have called him if he was not yet home and it was late. The applicant indicated that it was normal for him to get home from work between 10 PM and 11 PM. He indicated he normally left work about 9 PM. He then said it was Ramadan and he was supposed to break his fast at about 2 PM. The Tribunal asked the applicant where his car was on the night. He indicated it was parked in the downstairs carpark of his building. The Tribunal asked that he explain what happened on the night. He indicated that as soon as he came out of the building onto the road they stopped him with their van and made him get out of his car. The Tribunal noted that in his previous claims about the incident he has not mentioned that they told him to get out of his car. The applicant claimed that the agent must have forgotten to include that in the written claims. The Tribunal noted that, in the delegate’s decision record, he is recorded as having said in the interview that, around 9 o’clock at night, he was suddenly kidnapped and beaten on the way home from work. The Tribunal noted that the delegate quoted him as saying that four people came and beat him up, abducted him, put him in a van, and drove for one and a half hours. The Tribunal questioned why he had not mentioned that he was abducted from his car after leaving the car park. It also noted that he claimed to have been driven for one and a half hours before being questioned, threatened and beaten. It asked how it could be that he was back at his apartment between 10PM and 11PM, being examined by the doctor, if he was abducted at 9 PM, driven for one and half hours, questioned, beaten and then driven home. The applicant said that it was not like that. He left work at 9 PM and was abducted. He was in their van for a total of one to one and a half hours. He was blindfolded and he did not have a watch or a mobile phone so he did not know the time. The Tribunal noted that the applicant indicated that he was taken to the same Mosque from his home in 2015. It asked how long he was driven in 2015. He indicated it was 45 minutes to one hour. The Tribunal indicated that his evidence about this incident may be problematic as he claimed to have been abducted at 9 PM, driven to a remote Mosque, questioned, beaten and then driven to his home, but he has claimed he was home being examined by the doctor between 10 and 11 PM. It explained that the timing of his evidence appeared to be implausible.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate commented that his recounting of these events was different to the rest of his oral evidence and she formed the view that he had rehearsed the narrative. She also noted that there were inconsistencies in his evidence about the incident and the timing of the first threats. It asked if he had any comment to make about her views. The applicant indicated that he was being given a hard time at work in March 2012. The incident occurred in July. The Tribunal noted that the applicant has provided to the Tribunal letters from senior management about his excellent performance and his bonuses including a letter dated March 2012. The Tribunal asked why he did not approach senior management for support if it was the case that other employees were giving him a hard time. The applicant indicated that the [Section 1] manager, [Mr A], was different to his manager. He claimed that he did go to a manager, Mr [E], and told him what was happening. Mr [E] said that he was to do what he had been told and Mr [E] would deal with [Mr A]. The Tribunal asked what happened as a consequence. The applicant indicated that [Mr A] said to him that he was Pashtun and so should approve the remittances for them. The Tribunal asked the applicant again what happened to [Mr A] once he had told his manager that [Mr A] was pressuring him to approve the remittances. The applicant indicated that the consequence was that he was abducted. He indicated that nothing further happened to [Mr A] as they (management) did not want to get involved.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had claimed that people he worked with were jealous and he started receiving death threats. It asked the applicant to describe those threats and whether he associated them with jealous work colleagues. The applicant indicated that when he was promoted to [Occupation 9], [Mr A] called him and warned him not to get in disputes with mullahs because they would kill him. He knew that the jealous people, subordinate to him, were clearing smaller amounts. [Mr A] warned him not to interfere. He indicated that some key people were clearing small remittances and he caught them.
The Tribunal noted from the delegate’s decision record that the applicant did not depart Pakistan until 8 weeks after his student visa was granted. It explained that this might suggest that he was not fearful of remaining in Pakistan. It asked why he did not depart Pakistan as soon as he was granted the student visa, if it was the case that he was fearful. The applicant indicated he did not get his tickets immediately. He was settling his family in and he had to apply for his wife’s visa. The Tribunal explained that this might suggest that he was not genuinely fearful of remaining in Pakistan. The applicant indicated that he came to Australia as quickly as he could.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not apply for protection until his [second temporary visa] review application with the MRT was unsuccessful, in March 2015, several years after he claimed that he was taken in the night and beaten in July 2012. The Tribunal explained that this might cast serious doubt on the reliability of his claims to have been fearful in Pakistan. The applicant indicated that he went back to Pakistan in 2015. He was sure he would be granted his [second temporary] visa and believed that after 2 years it would convert to permanent residence. The Tribunal noted that his application for [a] temporary visa, rather than a protection visa, might suggest he was not fearful of returning to Pakistan. The applicant indicated he was not able to apply for a protection visa because his mother was sick and he would not have been able to return to Pakistan. However he did not realise that the mullahs would take it so seriously. He did not think he was so important.
The Tribunal explained that the applicant’s return to Pakistan in 2015 might cast serious doubt on his claims to have been taken in the night, beaten and threatened in 2012. The applicant indicated that when he went back to Pakistan in 2015 he thought everything was settled. The Tribunal asked why in those circumstances he has claimed that he rarely left the house except in his brother’s car. The applicant indicated that his mother would not let him go out. He claimed he stayed in the [Address 2] apartment the whole time. He then indicated that during the last few days he stayed in another apartment building in hiding.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate records that the applicant breached a condition of his student visa because he was not enrolled in a course in Australia. The applicant disputed this and stated he was enrolled but he stopped studying in about May 2013.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant has now provided new claims to the Tribunal about Mr [A] and the international businessmen, billionaires and rich entrepreneurs with whom he was in regular contact. It asked about those claims. The applicant indicated that Mr [A], ‘bigger than a billionaire’, has taken over his brother’s business by force. He did not give the name before because he was scared. Now he has no option but to tell the Tribunal. The Tribunal asked the applicant where Mr [A] is from. He indicated he is from Pakistan, maybe Karachi. The Tribunal asked why then Mr [A] would want the applicant to work for him so he did not need to travel to Karachi. The applicant indicated that he had been coming from Dubai. The applicant claimed that Mr [A] met with him and offered to double his salary if the applicant worked for him. This occurred after he was abducted in July 2012. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew that Mr [A] was a billionaire. He indicated Mr [A] had most of his accounts in Karachi [with his employer]. The Tribunal questioned how he would know that. He indicated that they had all of his information about his various accounts. He then indicated that he was guessing or estimating his wealth. He had businesses in [several different] companies. The Tribunal questioned how he knew about all of Mr [A]’s companies. He indicated that Mr [A] was [had a senior role with] those companies and the bank had that information.
The Tribunal asked why Mr [A] would specifically seek out the applicant to work in his business, particularly given his evidence that in the past he has always acted in accordance with the bank’s instructions and blocked the remittances of mullahs and TTP members. The applicant thought it was because he was in the position to block the payments. He then repeated that [Mr A] was against him. He indicated that it was inconvenient to transfer amounts of less than $10,000. The Tribunal asked again why Mr [A] would be interested in employing the applicant, given in the past he was known for not allowing the remittances to go through. He indicated that they were being stubborn. He indicated that it could have been because of his qualifications and that he knew how to money launder.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his brother’s detention and criminal record. He stated that no one in his family has a criminal record. He repeated that his brother was unlawfully detained for [several] months.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any other evidence to give. He did not. It asked if he wished for the Tribunal to take evidence from the second named applicant, his wife. He indicated that he did want the Tribunal to take evidence from his wife.
The Tribunal then took evidence from second named applicant. It explained to her that her husband had given evidence about his claims including the incident in July 2012. It asked her what happened when her husband got home after the incident in July 2012. She indicated that her husband arrived home at about midnight. She started crying when she saw him because he was [injured]. [Other parts of his body] were bruised. He told her that the mullahs and the police had captured him.
The Tribunal asked the second named applicant when she expected her husband to be home from work that evening. She indicated she expected him to be home at about 6 PM. She was not sure exactly what time he got home indicating it was about 11 PM or 12.
The Tribunal asked the second named applicant what else happened that night after he got home. She indicated that her husband was examined by a doctor. The Tribunal asked how long it was before the doctor arrived. She indicated it took the doctor about 45 minutes to arrive at their home. The Tribunal asked the second named applicant if the doctor thought he should go to the hospital. She indicated that the doctor thought her husband should go to the hospital but she did not want him to go outside again.
The Tribunal asked the second named applicant what else happened after her husband returned home that night. The second named applicant indicated that she was distressed because her husband had been injured and the doctor thought he should go to the hospital.
The Tribunal noted the second named applicant did not mention that the police arrived that night, at the same time as the doctor, and threatened the applicant.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant its concerns about the inconsistencies in the second named applicant’s oral evidence compared to the evidence he gave about the events after he returned home on the night of the incident in July 2012. The applicant indicated that because it was Ramadan the bank finished at 2 PM. He was expected home at 6 PM but he did not go home because he was busy at work. The applicant thought the second named applicant was confused because she is upset. He did not know why she forgot that the police came that night. He thought it was because she was getting emotional.
The Tribunal then gave the applicant an opportunity to comment on or respond to information it considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the Department’s decision. It gave to the applicant the particulars of the information and explained the relevance of the information. It also explained to the applicant that he could ask for more time and it would consider whether it was reasonable to give him more time to provide his comments and/or response. The applicant did not seek further time.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the second named applicant had said that she was expecting him home at 6 PM. It explained that this was inconsistent with his evidence and because of those inconsistencies it may find that his oral evidence is unreliable. It explained that, if it found his oral evidence is unreliable, it may not accept his claims. The applicant stated that he did not know why she said she expected him at home at 6 PM. He indicated that the bank could confirm that he left work late.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the second named applicant had said that it took the doctor about 45 minutes to get to his home. It explained that this was inconsistent with his evidence that the doctor arrived almost immediately because he lived in the next building. The Tribunal explained that the inconsistencies in the second named applicant’s evidence may cast doubt on the claim that the doctor attended and examined him very soon after he arrived home. It explained that the inconsistencies in their evidence may cast doubt on the claims about the incident. The applicant indicated that the second named applicant is totally confused. He does not know why she said the doctor took 45 minutes to arrive.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that, despite being asked at least 3 times what happened after the applicant got home from the incident in July 2012, the second named applicant did not mention that the police attended the applicants’ home. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that if it relied on the second named applicant’s omission it may not accept that the police did attend his home that night as he has claimed. It explained that this may cast doubt on the reliability of his claims and the Tribunal may not accept that the applicant was abducted, beaten and returned to his home injured and it may not accept that the police then attended his home. The applicant indicated he did not know why she could not remember that the police came to their home. He did not know how she could have forgotten that.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the second named applicant had also stated that the doctor thought he should go to the hospital but that she did not want him to go. It explained that this was inconsistent with his own evidence that the doctor examined him and indicated his injuries were not that bad. It explained that these inconsistencies may cast doubt on the reliability of the claim. The applicant indicated that the doctor did examine him and said that if he started bleeding again he should go to the hospital.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any further evidence to give. He indicated that there were differences in their oral evidence because they did not get together and prepare for the hearing. He also noted that it was World Refugee Day and asked the Tribunal to make a compassionate decision.
The second named applicant indicated that she had no idea about the timing of her husband’s return home and the doctor’s arrival. She stated that the lives of her husband and children are threatened. She stated that whatever she and the applicant had told the Tribunal is true. She was so shocked on the night.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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, he or she 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.
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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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 relevant country information assessments 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Nationality
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Pakistan and has provided to the Department and the Tribunal a copy of his Pakistani passport. The Tribunal has also seen copies of the second, third and fourth named applicants’ Pakistani passports. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are citizens of Pakistan. The Tribunal finds that Pakistan is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claims for protection. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has the right to enter and reside in any other country for the purposes of the Act.
When making the visa application the applicant provided various media articles including some concerning the remand of an MQM activist charged with killing people. When asked why political articles were provided, the applicant indicated that his family did not have any political involvement with any political party.
In his written application, the applicant claimed that TTP militants brainwashed, abducted and recruited youths for military training and that while at university he was approached by radicals Muslims who forced him to move to the tribal area for military training to fight US forces. However in his oral evidence he admitted to the Tribunal that this was not true. He claimed that militants used to pressure him but he resisted. When asked why his written application included this claim he indicated that he did not write the visa application and that his lawyer must have made a mistake. The Tribunal notes however that the applicant signed every page of the written statement and that he is able to speak, read and write in English. The applicant acknowledged that he read the whole statement and signed it but thought he must have misunderstood. The Tribunal is of the view this raises concerns about the applicant’s willingness to make false claims and the reliability of his evidence.
The Tribunal also notes in his written claims the applicant has suggested that he acted to save the Shias living in his area. However when this was raised with him by the delegate he indicated his only support of Shia was when clerics spoke at the mosque against Shia, he and others did not do so. When it was raised with him by the Tribunal he indicated that when local clerics used to ‘tell us the wrong things’ about Shia, he would say that it was not true. The Tribunal is of the view the written claim is an embellishment. It is not satisfied that the applicant actively supported Shias living in his area or had a profile as a Shia supporter.
On the basis of letters provided to the Tribunal, on [Employer 1] letterhead, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant worked for [Employer 1] in the period 2007 until he came to Australia in 2012. It is satisfied that he was promoted to the position [Occupation 9][in] April 2011. On the basis of the applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that he is familiar with remittances although he was not able to give to the delegate the proper description for the acronym [Section 1]. His correspondence from [Employer 1] does record however that he worked in the [specified] section of [specified] Group.
The applicant has given to the Tribunal a job description which indicates he had the power to decide whether or not international remittances were approved and facilitated. He claims that in this role it with his responsibility to monitor and block any transactions where terrorist groups were involved. He claims that he found many terrorists, including the TTP and especially mullahs, were involved in transactions with terrorists from overseas and within Pakistan. He claims he was very particular in blocking these transactions as required by the bank. He claims however that for doing so he received death threats and he was warned by a bank manager that unless he worked with the other employees he would face problems in the future.
The applicant also claims that in July 2012 he was stopped by 4 men, dragged into a van and taken to an old Mosque in a remote area where there were 2 mullahs waiting. He claims that he was beaten, asked whether he had blocked transactions and he was threatened. He claims that the mullahs warned him that they were about to receive millions of rupees from [Country 1] and that he should not block these funds. He claims that he was warned if he tried to block the funds he would be killed. He claims that after he was returned to his home the police arrived and knew what had happened. He was warned by the police that if he failed to comply with the mullah’s orders they would arrest him for working with the TPP in illegal smuggling. He claims that he was warned that if he ever attempted to complain about them or the mullahs he could be shot and killed.
In his written application the applicant claimed that after he arrived in Australia he told his brother about what happened before he fled Pakistan. His brother encouraged him to study and apply for permanent residence in Australia. His brother warned him that if he lodged a protection visa application he would not be able to leave Australia which would mean that he could not visit his mother who was very sick. He decided to return to Pakistan in February 2015 despite fearing the police and the mullahs but that he rarely left the house except in his brother’s car. However the police became aware that he had returned and he turned up and took him to the police station, beat him and asked him why he had previously fled the country without letting them know. He claims that the mullahs then turned up and took him back to the same Mosque where he had previously been beaten. The mullah warned him that they had lost [a large sum of money] because of his actions and that he had to compensate them by working for him. He agreed to do it to escape from the mullah, and told them that he would not be leaving the country again because his mother was seriously ill and so he would be staying in Pakistan permanently. The mullah believed him and asked him to visit the Mosque the following morning. However the applicant took the opportunity to flee Pakistan. His brother took him to a place near the airport where he hid. He then decided that he could not return to Pakistan and he made his application for protection.
For the following reasons the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been truthful in his claims to have come into contact with terrorists and mullahs who were attempting to receive money from unlawful sources, or that the applicant was harmed and threatened in Pakistan as described.
The Tribunal is of the view there are inconsistencies in the applicant’s own evidence about the purported attack on the night in July 2012. His written claims indicate that he was on his way home from the bank when he was stopped and dragged into a van. However when establishing his routine in Pakistan, the Tribunal asked the applicant how he travelled to work. He indicated that he drove to work and parked in the building. When it asked about the purported attack in July 2012, in his oral evidence to the Tribunal he indicated that his car was stopped. He claimed that as soon as he came out onto the road they stopped him with their van and made him get out of his car. The Tribunal noted that in his previous written and oral evidence about the incident he had not indicated that they told him to get out of his car. The applicant claimed that the agent must have forgotten to include that in the written claims. The Tribunal notes that, in the delegate’s decision record, the applicant is recorded as having said in the interview that at around 9 o’clock at night, he was suddenly kidnapped and beaten on his way home from work. The Tribunal notes that the delegate quoted him as saying that four people came and beat him up, abducted him, put him in a van, and drove for one and a half hours. The applicant did not mention that he was abducted from his car after leaving the car park. The Tribunal is of the view this change in his evidence, about being stopped at the carpark was introduced because the applicant realised he had told the Tribunal that he drove to work.
The Tribunal also notes there are inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence in terms of the timing of the purported events on the night in July 2012. It notes the applicant claimed to have been driven for one and a half hours before being questioned, threatened and beaten. When asked how it could be that he was back at his apartment between 10PM and 11PM, if he was abducted at 9 PM, driven for 1½ hours, questioned, beaten and then driven home, the applicant attempted to explain this problematic timing by claiming that he was in the van for a total of 1½ hours, and that he was blindfolded and he did not have a watch or a mobile phone so he did not know the time. The Tribunal notes however that he indicated he was taken to the same Mosque from his home in 2015 and driven for 45 minutes to 1 hour. Considered overall, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about the timing of this purported incident to be problematic. The Tribunal finds it problematic that he claims to have been abducted at 9 o’clock, driven for at least 1½ hours, beaten and questioned and then taken back to his apartment (a drive of about 45 minutes to 1 hour) between 10 and 11 PM. The Tribunal is of the view the problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence casts doubt on the reliability of this claim.
The Tribunal also notes that the second named applicant’s evidence on this issue was inconsistent with that of the applicant. She indicated that she expected the applicant to be home from work at 6 PM whereas the applicant indicated that she was accustomed to his late return from work. She indicated that it took the doctor about 45 minutes to get to his home whereas he indicated the doctor arrived almost immediately because he lived in the next building. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant indicated that the doctor had examined him and found his injuries were not that bad. However the second named applicant indicated that the doctor thought the applicant should go to the hospital. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation for these inconsistencies but is of the view they remain concerning.
The Tribunal also notes that despite being asked on at least 3 occasions what had happened on the night in question, the second named applicant did not mention that the police attended the applicants’ home. The Tribunal finds this omission to be particularly problematic given it is one of his significant claims. It has taken into account the applicant’s responses to the second named applicant’s omission, and accepts she may have been nervous and emotional, but it is not satisfied the applicant has provided an adequate explanation for her failure to remember such a significant claim. The Tribunal is of the view the second named applicant did not mention the police attending his home on the night in July 2012 because the claim is not true. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s explanation that there were differences in their oral evidence because they did not get together and prepare for the hearing. However it is of the view that if the claims were true, while there may have been minor inconsistencies, the evidence regarding the timing of the applicant’s return, the timing of the doctor’s arrival and his opinion about the injuries, and the presence of the police on the night would be consistent. Overall the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was abducted, beaten, threatened and returned to his home injured. It does not accept therefore that he was examined by a doctor, or that the police attended his home, already knowing what had occurred earlier at the abandoned Mosque. It has formed the view the applicant has manufactured these claims.
The Tribunal is also concerned about whether the applicant had any subjective fear when he left Pakistan in 2012 given his decision to return to Pakistan in February 2015. It finds his explanations for this, that when he went back to Pakistan in 2015 he thought everything was settled, to be unpersuasive. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant genuinely feared harm from the police, the mullahs, the TTP and other extremists he would not have returned to Pakistan 2015 even if his mother was seriously ill. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant did not depart Pakistan until 8 weeks after his [first visa] was granted. It does not accept that he would have remained in Pakistan to settle his family in and apply for his wife’s visa if he genuinely feared harm from extremists and the police. It does not accept he feared harm when he departed Pakistan in 2012 or that he had any fear of harm by extremists or the police when he returned in 2015.
The applicant has claimed that he was aware that TTP members had accounts at [Employer 1] because their names had been previously associated with TTP commercial bank accounts. He indicated that prior to about 2010 they had instructions to allow their remittances but later [Country 2] put pressure on Pakistan to stop the remittances. The Tribunal notes however that the country information confirms that the TTP was banned in August 2008 and all of its bank accounts and assets were frozen[4]. When this was put to him he claimed that the politicians are lying and it was only after pressure from the US that the government actually banned the TT. [Details deleted]. This is somewhat different to the scenario described by the applicant where he, as an [Occupation 2], was supposed to have been contacted secretly by the [Mr E] and given a list of names to block transactions in about 2011. He claimed he was given a list of 40 to 50 names of mullahs from head office in about 2011. When asked how he knew that accounts were in the names of mullahs, he indicated there were particular mullahs who contacted him and most of them had been in contact with the TTP. When asked for further information about this he indicated that they were local mullahs, 4 or 5 who contacted him about remittances. The Tribunal has considered his evidence on this particular issue and finds it lacking in persuasive detail. When the Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew that monies were coming from overseas terrorists, his response was that they were drug dealers, big people like [Mr A]. The Tribunal also finds this evidence unpersuasive. It is of the view he has manufactured aspects of this evidence.
[4] Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Dawn, 19 January 2012, accessed 21 June 2019 “On August 25, 2008, Pakistan banned the group, calling it a terrorist organisation and froze its assets, and also banned it from making media appearances.”
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that work colleagues were jealous of his promotion and that he started to receive death threats. When asked about the death threats, the applicant indicated that when he was promoted to [Occupation 9], [Mr A] warned him not to get in disputes with mullahs because they would kill him. He indicated jealous people were clearing smaller remittances and he caught them. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence on this issue but finds it vague and unpersuasive. It does not accept that the applicant started receiving death threats after he was promoted. It is of the view the applicant has manufactured this claim.
Overall the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was abducted, beaten and threatened as he has claimed. It does not accept he is of adverse interest to members of the TTP, mullahs and police officers. It has formed the view that, if it was the case that he had been threatened and warned by [Mr A], and harmed in July 2012 as described, he would have departed Pakistan as soon as his student visa was granted. It notes also that he had already made his student visa application before July 2012 clearly indicating he intended to depart Pakistan before the alleged incident.
The Tribunal also notes that when asked at the hearing why the applicant came to Australia he indicated he came here in in October 2012 as the holder of a student visa to study for a [Subject 3]. He claimed that he started the course in December 2012 and that he did not complete the course because his brother died. He indicated that his boss in Australia then offered to sponsor him for a [temporary] visa. From its observations at the hearing the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant then realised he had forgotten to mention that he came to Australia because he feared harm in Pakistan. It appeared to the Tribunal that the applicant added as an afterthought that his main purpose for leaving Pakistan was for security reasons.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence regarding his use of different residential addresses in Pakistan. The applicant told the Tribunal that he always lived at [Address 2], in the street where the bomb went off in March 2013. It considers his explanation for giving a different address to that provided in his student visa application, that [Address 2] was a rental property and they used to miss mail, unpersuasive and manufactured. The Tribunal notes that in the protection visa application he indicated he lived for a period at a different address referring to the address provided in the visa application for the period 1979 to 2007, [Address 1] Karachi. The Tribunal has formed the view the applicant now uses the [Address 2] address to support the claim that his wife had witnessed a bomb going off before she came to Australia. While this discrepancy is not germane to his central claims, the Tribunal is of the view it demonstrates his willingness to alter evidence to bolster his claims.
The Tribunal is also not satisfied with the applicant’s explanation for why he did not study in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he could not pursue his study here because his brother, who was sponsoring his study, passed away in April 2013. However the Tribunal notes he told the delegate that his brother died in March 2014. While this inconsistency is not central to his claims to fear harm in Pakistan, it also raises concerns about the reliability of the applicant as a witness and his overall credibility.

The Tribunal also notes that the applicant did not apply for protection until his Subclass 457 review application with the MRT was unsuccessful, in March 2015, nearly 3 years after he was supposed to have been taken in the night and beaten in July 2012. When this was raised with him he indicated that he was sure he would be granted his Subclass 457 visa and believed that after 2 years it would convert to permanent residence. The Tribunal has considered this but is of the view his application for a temporary visa, rather than a protection visa, strongly indicates he was not genuinely fearful of returning to Pakistan. It takes into account his claim that he could not apply for protection because he would not have been able to return to Pakistan. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would have risked returning to see his mother, even if she was very sick if he genuinely feared serious harm in Pakistan.
Overall the Tribunal is of the view the applicant is not a witness of truth and his evidence is unreliable. It does not accept any of his claims to have been harmed, threatened or warned in Pakistan. It is of the view all of his claims about past harm are manufactured. Accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied it can rely on any of the claims made in writing to the Tribunal in January 2019, regarding his regular contact with international businessmen, billionaires and rich entrepreneurs who transferred money from [Country 1] and other Muslim and Arab countries. It does not accept his claims to have been approached by Mr [A], a billionaire, was one of the people who would transfer money into [Employer 1] accounts. It finds his claimed to have come to know from other banks in Pakistan that Mr [A] was the [Occupation 6] from Pakistan into Arab countries to be fabricated. It does not accept that Mr [A] offered to double his salary if the applicant worked for him. His explanation for why Mr [A] and other criminals would be interested in employing the applicant, given in the past he had not allowed the remittances through, (that they were being stubborn and that it could have been because of his qualifications and that he knew how to money launder) to be highly unpersuasive and indicative of his willingness to manufacture evidence. The Tribunal does not accept that a billionaire drug dealer would directly approach an [Occupation 2] who had been complying with the bank’s directions to block unlawful remittances. It is of the view the applicant made these claims so long after his original protection visa application, nearly 4 years later, not because he feared disclosing the particulars, but because they are contrived.
The Tribunal does not accept any of the applicant’s written claims made to the Tribunal in January 2019 that he met with international businessmen, billionaires and rich entrepreneurs. It does not accept he was pursued by Mr [A], the [Occupation 6]. Nor does it accept he was notified by other bank managers and warned not to refuse to work for Mr [A]. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant genuinely had contact with organised criminals and feared harm for not complying with their wishes, as he has now indicated, he would have left Pakistan as soon as his student visa was granted and he would have applied for protection as soon as he arrived in Australia. He would not have returned to Pakistan in February 2015. Nor does it accept the applicant’s claim that his brother was unlawfully detained for [months] having been framed by Mr [A] and charged with drug offences, or that his brother told him that if he returned to Pakistan and worked for Mr [A], his brother could be spared. The Tribunal is of the view the all of the claims made in writing to the Tribunal in January 2019 are manufactured and indicative of the applicant’s lack of credibility.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant fears harm in Pakistan for any of the reasons claimed. It is not satisfied he is of adverse interest to the TTP or other extremists, mullahs or police officers. It is not satisfied he has any adverse profile because he worked for [Employer 1] in the past. It is not satisfied the applicant will be harmed if he returns to Pakistan. It is satisfied the applicant will not be harmed in Karachi.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act, or that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criteria?
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion.
As indicated above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s claims to have been harmed in Pakistan are reliable. On the basis of correspondence on [Employer 1] letterhead the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has previously worked for a bank in Pakistan. He has been working in Australia at [Employer 2]. He speaks, reads and writes in English and Urdu and he has tertiary qualifications. On this basis the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant will be able to secure employment if he returns to Pakistan such that he and his family will be able to subsist. The Tribunal is also satisfied the applicant has family in Karachi and he and his wife and children will be supported if they return to Pakistan. In view of these and the above findings and on all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm if he returns to Pakistan.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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).
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Denise Connolly
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)    the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)    the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2019] AATA 6115

22 July 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Standing