1617664 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, a Shia Muslim of Pashtun Turi ethnicity from Pakistan, claimed a well-founded fear of persecution based on his religion, ethnicity, and imputed political opinion against the Taliban. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically under the criteria for a protection visa as defined by the *Migration Regulations 1994* and the *1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees* and its 1967 Protocol.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the applicant's claims against the available country information and legal principles. It accepted the applicant's evidence as truthful and credible, finding that Shias in Pakistan, particularly in the Kurram Agency, face a real risk of persecution due to sectarian violence, tribal dimensions, and the historical conflict with the Taliban. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's specific ethnic and tribal background (Pashtun Turi) made him a more easily targeted individual. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that state protection in the applicant's home area was weak and unreliable, and that non-state insurgency groups, such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, operated with impunity.

Crucially, the Tribunal considered the possibility of internal relocation within Pakistan. While acknowledging that Gilgit-Baltistan might have lower levels of sectarian violence, the Tribunal concluded that relocation to this province would not be practicable or reasonable for the applicant. This conclusion was based on the applicant's personal profile, the difficulties in finding employment in a rural area, the dangers of travel, and, significantly, the applicant's documented history of significant mental trauma and the severe limitations of mental health services in Pakistan. The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological distress would likely increase upon relocation, and he would not be able to access adequate care. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*.