1621200 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 772

1621200 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 772 (6 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1621200

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan

MEMBER:Paul Millar

DATE:6 January 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 06 January 2020 at 1:13pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – dispute with relatives over land – shooting and imprisonment – opposition to marriage by wife’s family – general economic and security conditions – credibility – voluntary returns to home country without harm – long delay before applying for protection – credibility – inconsistent evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2)(a), 65

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 25 November 2016 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  The first-named applicant is a [age]-year-old man from Pakistan (‘the applicant’).  The second-named applicant is his wife and the third and fourth-named applicants are their children. Only the applicant made protection claims.  The applicants, who the Tribunal finds to be citizens of Pakistan, applied for the visas on 18 April 2016.[1]  The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 20 December 2019 to give evidence and present arguments in relation to the issues arising in the review.  The applicant and his wife gave evidence at the hearing. They communicated with the Tribunal in English and did not request the assistance of an interpreter.

   [1] The Tribunal's finding on citizenship is based on copies of pages from the Pakistan passports of the first, second and third-named applicants which appear at folios 27-32 of the Department file and copies of pages from the Pakistan passport of the fourth-named applicant which appear at folio 73 of the Tribunal file.  The fourth-named applicant was born in August 2016 and an application for a protection visa was made on her behalf on 14 November 2016.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 themselves 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).

5. 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.

6. 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).

   Mandatory considerations

7. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. According to his evidence to the Department and the Tribunal, the applicant claims protection on the ground that certain individuals in Pakistan will harm him due to a dispute over land and because of his marriage to his wife.[2]  The Tribunal holds concerns about the applicant’s credibility. Before discussing them, it is necessary to first recite the evidence given by the applicant at the Tribunal hearing.

   Evidence to the Tribunal

   [2] The applicant's evidence to the Department and the Tribunal comprised the contents of the protection visa application forms; the applicant's written statement lodged with that application; the applicant's evidence at his interview with the delegate for which there is an audio recording on the Department file and to which the Tribunal has listened; an affidavit made by the applicant in November 2016 which appears at folios 34-38 of the Tribunal file; a further undated written statement from the applicant which appears at folio 71 of the Tribunal file and the applicant's evidence at the Tribunal hearing.

9. To the Tribunal, the applicant related the following account of events on which his protection claims are based.  The applicant comes from the city of X in the Punjab.  While he and his family were living in that city, his father and his father’s cousin were in a dispute over ownership of certain land there.  In 1995, while the applicant was at school, an altercation took place on this land between, on one side, the applicant’s father, one of the applicant’s brothers and an uncle and, on the other side, members of the family of the applicant’s father’s cousin.  During the altercation, shots were fired and the applicant’s father’s cousin was killed.

10. That same day, in fear for their safety, the applicant and his family went to stay in the home of a family friend in Lahore.  After one or two months, the applicant’s father, brother and his uncle were imprisoned because a case had been commenced about the shooting incident.  His father and uncle were released from prison after approximately one and a half years.  His brother was released from prison after two years.  By that time, the applicant had gone to study in Islamabad where a maternal aunt lived.  The remainder of his family went to live in B, which the applicant described as his ‘grandmother’s village’.  They did not return to their native city of X because they remained fearful for their safety due to the shooting incident.

11. After some years, the applicant’s family stopped living in B and went to live in Lahore so that the applicant’s siblings could study.  However, while they remained living in that city, they changed their address.  They did this in fear for their safety.  In this respect, people from the family of the applicant’s father’s cousin (‘the cousin’s family’) had gone looking for the applicant’s family in both the village of B and in Lahore.  They did this by speaking to a relative of the family who lived in B and another relative who lived in Lahore.  They approached these relatives and asked for the whereabouts of the applicant’s family, threatening to kill the family and their children.

12. They made similar threats in telephone calls to these same relatives, calls that were made approximately once each month.  In this sense, these threats, in person and over the telephone, were made indirectly against the family through these relatives, because the people making the threats did not have the telephone numbers of the applicant’s family or their current address.  On occasions, the family would be warned that these people had found out where they were living and were going to come to that place. For this reason, the family changed address approximately four or six times prior to the applicant leaving Pakistan to come to Australia in 2006.   

13. The applicant left Pakistan at that time because he was afraid for his safety in view of the threats being made against his family.  He completed his studies in Islamabad and undertook a further Bachelor’s degree in Lahore, living with his family throughout that period. He then enrolled in a Master’s degree, but did not complete it because of his wish to leave Pakistan.  At the time he left Pakistan, his family remained living in Lahore. 

    Credibility concerns

    Willingness to return to Pakistan

14. As set out above, to the Tribunal, the applicant said that he left Pakistan in 2006 in fear for his safety, that fear arising from the murder of a relative in 1995 in relation to a dispute about land in his native city. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that, from that time in 1995, his family lived in different places because threats were being made against them by the cousin’s family.

15. Once the applicant had given that evidence, the Tribunal asked him whether, after he left Pakistan in 2006, his family told him that they suffered harm of any kind in Pakistan.  In response, the applicant said that the same people caused them harm and trouble many times.  When asked what harm they suffered, the applicant said that soon after he left Pakistan in 2006, the cousin’s family went to look for him and all of his family, making threats against them as they had done before, through the same two relatives in the village of B and Lahore. The applicant said that the cousin’s family are still making threats against him and his family in this manner.

16. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that he returned to Pakistan in January 2008 and remained there until March 2008.   He returned to Pakistan again in December 2008 and remained there until late January 2009.   He returned again in May 2010 and remained there until July that year.  On each occasion, he stayed with his family in Lahore who continued to change addresses.  The applicant said that he returned to Pakistan in February 2011 to marry his wife.  When asked if he had any difficulty with any member of his wife’s family once he married her, the applicant said that his wife’s brother, who was not in Pakistan at that time, was opposed to the marriage. He wanted the applicant’s wife to marry a relative.  Over the telephone, to the applicant, this person said that he would kill the applicant for this reason.  This brother was the only member of his wife’s family who made any threat against the applicant.

17. The applicant said that he thought that he met this brother in person on a subsequent visit to Pakistan. In this respect, the applicant said that he returned to Pakistan in January 2012 and remained there for three months.  His wife came to Australia in August 2012 and, along with their child, they both returned to Pakistan in June 2013, a visit discussed further below in this decision.  The Tribunal questioned the applicant closely as to whether he encountered harm or difficulty on any of his return trips to Pakistan. In response, the applicant said that on each occasion, he would just stay at home and not go outside.  For that reason, he did not suffer any harm during these visits, but, he was always afraid for his safety.

18. At a later stage in the hearing, the Tribunal reminded the applicant of his evidence that he left Pakistan in 2006 in fear of harm from the cousin’s family who had, through others, been making threats to harm the applicant’s family.  The Tribunal also reminded the applicant of his evidence that, after he left Pakistan in 2006, these people continued to make these threats of harm.  The Tribunal then put to the applicant that it had difficulty accepting these claims when the applicant, after coming to Australia, returned to Pakistan a number of times, staying over one month on each occasion, apart from his final visit. The Tribunal put to the applicant that his willingness to return to Pakistan on a number of occasions could suggest, first, that he did not genuinely fear harm and, second, that he was not truly in danger as he claimed.

19. In response, the applicant said that on all of his return visits to Pakistan, he stayed at home and he never went outside.  The applicant’s response does not overcome the concern that the Tribunal holds on this issue.  The Tribunal does not believe that, on the one hand, the applicant fled from his country in 2006 in fear for his safety, but, on the other hand, returned there a number of times, remaining there for periods of over one month.  The applicant made these return trips over a period in which he claimed threats to harm him and his family continued to be made.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s willingness to return to Pakistan on these various occasions, in his claimed circumstances, casts significant doubt over the credibility of his protection claims and the genuineness of his fear of harm.

    Failure to apply for protection at the earliest opportunity

20. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that he never returned to Pakistan after his visit in June 2013.  When asked why he had not returned to Pakistan since then, the applicant said that he had not since returned because he remained in fear of harm from the cousin’s family who continued to make threats against the applicant and his family.  The applicant told the Tribunal that his father passed away in May 2019, but he did not go back to Pakistan for his father’s funeral.

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he feared would happen if he returned to Pakistan.  In response, the applicant said that the cousin’s family would be able to find him.  In particular, the applicant mentioned the brother of the cousin who was killed in a shooting incident in 1995 and said that this person would harm him.  When asked who else would harm him, the applicant referred to the ‘circumstances’ in Pakistan and added that his wife’s brother, who had threatened to kill him, had moved back to Pakistan.

22. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was aware that he made an application for Ministerial intervention and the applicant said that was correct. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that, although he made that application, he did not advance the claims that he made to the Tribunal about his family being involved in a land dispute and being afraid of suffering harm at the hands of the cousin’s family.  When asked why he did not raise those claims in that application, the applicant said that it was because he was studying.  He could not complete his studies as he was under stress. He applied for a work visa but could not obtain it.  Then he was advised that he could apply for Ministerial intervention.

23. At a later stage of the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that, in addition to his willingness to return to Pakistan a number of times after coming to Australia in 2006, the Tribunal was also concerned that he did not apply for protection until April 2016.  In response, the applicant said that, prior to applying for protection, he was studying, but, due to stress, he could not finish his studies. He then applied for, but could not obtain, a work visa. After that, he felt that he had no other options and, therefore, applied for protection.  However, he said that whatever he told the Tribunal was the truth.

24. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was concerned by his evidence that he did not raise any of his protection claims in his application for Ministerial intervention.  The Tribunal put to him that this overall delay on his part in advancing these protection claims could suggest that he did not genuinely fear harm in Pakistan and that the account he related about his family being in a dispute over land, for which threats of harm were being made against them, was false.  In response, the applicant said that his application for Ministerial intervention was only related to his attempt to obtain a work visa.

25. In essence, the applicant states that he did not claim protection until such a late stage because he preferred to pursue other options to be able to remain here, based on study or employment.  If the applicant truly left Pakistan in 2006 because of fears for his safety and has not returned there since June 2013 on the same basis, the Tribunal does not believe that he would apply for protection as late as May 2016, some ten years after he first arrived in Australia.  This inordinate delay on his part only casts further significant doubt over the genuineness of his fear of harm in Pakistan and the veracity of his protection claims.

    Inconsistent evidence about possession of the land in dispute

26. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that after his father, brother and uncle were released from prison, his family commenced a case in court to obtain possession of the land in dispute in X.  When asked what became of that court case and whether his father won the case, the applicant said ‘No’, the case was still going on and still in the court.  He said that the other party was still asking for the land, they had kept the land for many years and they still had that land.  The case had not been resolved or finalised.  When again asked what happened to the land in dispute, the applicant again said that the other party took over and occupied the land.  After the shooting incident in 1995, his family never again went to the city of X out of fear for their safety.

27. The Tribunal put to the applicant that his account about this court case and the family’s attempt to gain possession of the land in dispute appeared to be inconsistent with his evidence in his written statement lodged with his protection visa application and in an affidavit he provided to the Tribunal that he made in November 2016.  In this respect, in his written statement, the applicant referred to his final visit to Pakistan in June 2013 and then stated as follows (verbatim):

    ‘Recently we went back almost 3 years before only for eight days and my family said to us …. the other party …. got the possession on our land where we live when the murder was happened and after some years we got the possession back …..’

28. According to that evidence, the applicant’s family regained possession of the land in dispute. In his affidavit made in November 2016, the applicant said that his family’s ‘opponents’ forcibly took possession of the land in dispute in 1995.  He then said that ‘after ten years of struggle and legal battle’ his parents ‘had retakes the possession from our opponents’.  Again, according to that account, any court case started by the applicant’s family to regain possession of the land was successful and the applicant’s family, at some stage, did take over the land in dispute.

1. The Tribunal put to the applicant that this was inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that the court case remained on foot, that the cousin’s family occupied and remained in possession of the land in dispute and, indeed, his family had been too afraid to even return to the city of X where the land was located since the shooting incident in 1995.  In response, the applicant said that his family did not get back possession of this land and it remained in the hands of the cousin’s family.  He did not know why the account he advanced in his written statement and affidavit was contrary to his evidence to the Tribunal.

2. The dispute over the land in question is the basis upon which the harm the applicant claims to fear first arose.  The Tribunal could, therefore, reasonably expect the applicant to give a consistent account as to whether or not his family got possession of this section of land after the shooting incident, including whether that was from the outcome of the court case they commenced for that purpose. It is inconceivable that the applicant would claim to the Tribunal that his family never had possession of this land from the time of the shooting incident, but, in two separate written accounts, claim to the contrary; that, in fact, they did regain possession. This inconsistency in his evidence reflects poorly on his credibility.

   Inconsistent evidence about the trip back to Pakistan in June 2013

3. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that he returned to Pakistan in June 2013.  He said that he stayed there for only eight days.  When asked why he stayed there for that short period, the applicant said that he needed money from his father who had sold some other land owned by the family.  When asked why he stayed for eight days and did not remain in Pakistan for a longer period, the applicant said that it was because he just returned to Pakistan to obtain this money from his father.  He then said that, in addition, they did not want to remain in Pakistan longer than eight days because they were more afraid for their safety.  When asked why he would be more afraid than on his previous visits, the applicant said that it was because, on this occasion, he and his wife had their [child] with them.

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether, prior to this visit to Pakistan in June 2013, threats were still being made against the family by the cousin’s family.  In response, the applicant said that these threats were made in the same fashion as they had been made before, through relatives and not directly, because the applicant’s family could not be located.  The Tribunal then asked the applicant whether, when he was in Pakistan on this brief visit in June 2013, his parents said anything to him about being there.  In response, the applicant said that his parents just told him to do what he had come there to do, take the money and then leave.

5. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it understood his evidence to be that he had always planned that this visit to Pakistan in June 2013 would only be brief because the purpose of the visit was simply to obtain money from his father.  In response, the applicant said that was correct. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it understood his evidence to be that, on this occasion, he had no plan to stay in Pakistan longer than eight days. In response, the applicant referred to his previous visits to Pakistan stating that he had remained there for more than one month on those occasions.  When asked to confirm that, with respect to this visit to Pakistan in June 2013, his plan was always to only stay eight days, the applicant said that was correct.

6. In contrast to this evidence, in his written statement, the applicant gives the impression that the reason he left Pakistan after only eight days on this return visit in June 2013 was because his family told him to leave the country as soon as possible. In this respect, in his statement, the applicant gives following evidence (verbatim):

   ‘Recently we went back almost three years before only for eight days and my family said to us to go back as soon as possible because the other party giving the serious threat to me specifically my family and my kids and also they got the possession on our land where we live when the murder was happened and after some years we got the possession back and when we last time went back I took my part of money and bring in Australia I need the money reason was I have to pay my fees and other costs so now they are trying to find us and we are very scared to go back.’

7. Similarly, in his affidavit made in November 2016, the applicant referred to the trip he made back to Pakistan with his wife and children in June 2013.   In this respect, the applicant gave the following account (verbatim):

   ‘After a three years gap, myself, my wife and [child] went to Pakistan to meet my family. We hardly spent a week there that my parents asked me to go back to Australia as our lives were not safe there. 

   In 1995 our opponents had forcibly taken possession of our agricultural land which my parents after a ten years of struggle and legal battle had retakes the possession from our opponents. Now with the fear that may not be dragged into some fake litigation again my family asked me and my wife to urgently return to Australia. During this visit I had taken my share of the money from my parents as I had to pay my fees and other expenses in Australia. The few days that we spent in Pakistan we (myself, my wife and [child]) constantly remained under shock and fear and we are now scared to go back to Pakistan.’  

8. The tenor of these accounts is that the reason the applicant only stayed eight days in Pakistan on this visit was because his parents told him to leave the country due to threats from the people he claims to fear which had, at that time, become more serious as his family had regained possession of the land in dispute.  However, as discussed above, to the Tribunal, the applicant said that his family never regained possession of this land.   The applicant’s accounts in his written statement and affidavit convey the impression that, in view of the threats that had arisen, the applicant’s stay in Pakistan was cut short.   These accounts are inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he had always planned to stay for only a brief period on this particular visit. 

9. The Tribunal put this concern to the applicant and, in response, he said that he left Pakistan and did not stay longer because his parents told him that there was danger and that he should leave as soon as possible.  That response does not overcome the Tribunal’s concern on this issue. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that his return visit to Pakistan was intentionally brief because he was only going back there to obtain money from his father.  If it was the case that he left Pakistan after just eight days because of warnings from his parents, the applicant could easily have given that evidence to the Tribunal when he was questioned about this particular trip. The applicant’s evidence about this return visit and why it ended after only eight days, in contrast to the length of all of his previous visits, is inconsistent and he has not provided a satisfactory explanation for that.

   FINDINGS

10. Considered cumulatively, the concerns that the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility lead the Tribunal to find that he is not a witness of truth and the account of events on which his protection claims are based is false.  Accordingly, the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims that his family was involved in a dispute over land and in relation to which a relative was killed. The Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims that his father, brother and an uncle were imprisoned in relation to this incident and that the applicant’s family commenced a court case to regain possession of this land.  The Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims that the family of a particular relative made threats in person or over the telephone to other relatives of the applicant.  The Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims that, in fear for their safety, the applicant’s family changed address a number of times. The Tribunal also disbelieves the applicant’s claims that the brother of his wife has made threats to harm him and that her family disapprove of her marrying him. 

11. In reaching its findings on the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the evidence of the applicant’s wife.  She made a written statement that was submitted to the Department, she gave evidence at the interview with the delegate and she gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing.  In this evidence, the applicant’s wife has purported to corroborate the applicant’s protection claims. She claimed that, after she married the applicant, she learned that his family was involved in a dispute and was being threatened in relation to that matter. Related to that claim, was unhappiness expressed by the applicant’s wife that, after her marriage to the applicant and before she came to Australia, the applicant’s family made her stay at home all of the time. 

12. The applicant’s wife also claimed that her family disapproved of her marriage to the applicant, wanting her to marry a relative, but, also, being concerned about the risk to her safety posed by the dispute in which the applicant’s family was involved.  She feared that, on return to Pakistan, her family would try to have her leave the applicant.  The applicant’s wife more broadly claimed at the Tribunal hearing that she was afraid for her safety and the safety of the applicant and their children. They were therefore anxious and stayed at home all of the time. 

13. The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence of the applicant’s wife, but, although consistent with the applicant’s evidence, it does not overcome the concerns that the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility.  The evidence of the applicant’s wife does not explain the delay on the applicant’s part in applying for protection and his willingness to go back to Pakistan a number of times while, at the same time, claiming to be at risk of harm there.  The evidence of the applicant’s wife does not explain the inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence that has been identified above and which impugns his credibility.

14. As that is the case, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s wife has given evidence to try and corroborate what are false claims.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s wife is also not a witness of truth and her evidence about the applicant’s family being involved with a dispute over land and her evidence about her own family disapproving of her marriage, is false.  The Tribunal also disbelieves the claims made by both witnesses that the applicant’s wife was made to stay at home all of the time in Pakistan.

15. In reaching its findings on credibility, the Tribunal also considered a First Information Report submitted by the applicant and relating to the claimed shooting incident in 1995.[3]  The contents of this document does not explain the delay on the applicant’s part in seeking protection, his willingness to return to Pakistan a number of times and the inconsistency in his accounts discussed above.  Further, the Tribunal put to the applicant country information to the effect that false documents are widely available in Pakistan.[4]  In response, the applicant said that while people could make whatever they want, he was telling the truth.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not telling the truth and does not give evidentiary weight to this document.

    [3] See folios 30-32 of the Tribunal file.

    [4] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019.  At 5.71, DFAT states:

16. To the Tribunal, the applicant submitted two death certificates one of them relating to his father.[5]  With respect to the other death certificate, the applicant did not explain its relevance. The document relates to the death of a female who was born in 1990 and who died in November 2018.  In relation to this person and also with respect to the applicant’s father, the death certificates describe the reason and nature of the death in question as ‘normal’.   In his written statement submitted prior to the Tribunal hearing, the applicant said that his father died of a heart attack caused by the threats that the cousin’s family were making.  At the hearing, when asked about the cause of his father’s death, the applicant said that his father was always stressed, but, otherwise he did not know.

    [5] See folios 55, 66-67 of the Tribunal file.

17. The Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant’s father may have passed away in May 2019, but this does not demonstrate that the applicant has related a truthful account of events. His father’s death and his claims in his written statement that this related to the family dispute, do not overcome the concerns that the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to the cause of the death of the applicant’s father. The Tribunal acknowledges the certificate submitted by the applicant with respect to a female born in 1990, but, this also does not overcome the concerns that the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal has no credible evidence before it as to the cause of this person’s death.  The Tribunal also has no credible evidence that the death of this person poses a risk to the applicant of suffering serious harm.

18. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence that the applicant or any member of his family suffered harm in Pakistan. There is no credible evidence before the Tribunal that anyone in Pakistan seeks to harm the applicant, his immediate family with him in Australia or any member of his family in Pakistan.  The Tribunal has no credible evidence as to why the applicant left Pakistan and came to Australia.  The Tribunal acknowledges claims made by the applicant and his wife that they are afraid to return to Pakistan, but, the Tribunal has no credible evidence as to why they do not want to return there.  The Tribunal will accept that the last place in which the applicant lived in Pakistan and where his family currently live, is Lahore.  However, because the applicant is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal has no credible evidence as to why the family left their native city and settled in Lahore.

19. At the hearing, the applicant’s wife broadly claimed that there was no work in Pakistan.  However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant received a tertiary education in Pakistan and no credible evidence was provided that anyone in Pakistan would seek to deny employment to the applicant or his wife.  In his affidavit made in November 2016 the applicant generally submitted that security in Pakistan was poor due to attacks by terrorist or militant groups in which innocent people suffered harm. He named certain prominent public figures who suffered harm in that respect. To the delegate, when interviewed in November 2016, he claimed that a recent explosion occurred near his home and 20 people were killed.  In that same context, the applicant’s wife expressed a fear for her [child]’s education (due to security concerns).

20. On this subject of violence and security, available country information indicates that there continues to be a significant decline in the number of reported terrorist attacks in Pakistan.[6]  This has been attributed to various security operations launched by the Pakistan army since 2014.[7]  This has also led to a significant reduction in serious crime.[8] Security and law enforcement personnel were the targets of the largest number of attacks in 2018, the most lethal attacks being against political leaders and workers.[9]  Based on this information, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicants suffering serious harm in Lahore where the applicant’s family are living is remote.  The applicant and his wife did not claim any involvement with political parties nor are they involved with law enforcement.  The risk of them suffering serious harm as civilians in Lahore from terrorist or militant activity would appear to be remote given the significant reduction in that activity and the number of those affected by such attacks. On that same basis, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicant’s children not receiving an education due to concerns about security is remote.

    [6] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019.  At 2.67, DFAT states as follows:

    ‘Overall, there was a 29 per cent decline in the number of reported terrorist attacks in 2018 (compared to a 16 per cent decline in 2017), marking a nine-year downward trend.’

    In terms of actual numbers affected, at 2.68 DFAT states as follows:

    ‘Up to 262 reported terrorist attacks, including 19 suicide and gun-and-suicide coordinated attacks, killing 595 and injuring 1030, occurred in 2018 (compared to up to 370 reported attacks in 2017).’

    At 2.69, DFAT states that in 2018 there were four militant attacks in the Punjab in which 20 people were killed and that being a 71% decrease in the number of attacks.  This is 20 deaths out of a population in the Punjab of approximately 110 million people (as stated by DFAT at 2.8).

    See also United Kingdom Home Office (‘UKHO’), Country Policy and Information Note Pakistan: Security and humanitarian situation, including fear of militant groups, Version 2.0, January 2019.  At 2.4.11, the UKHO states that in 2017, the overall security situation improved and that between 2014 and 2017, the total number of violence related fatalities declined by over 73%.

    [7] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 2.75 – 2.81.  See also United Kingdom Home Office (‘UKHO’), Country Policy and Information Note Pakistan: Security and humanitarian situation, including fear of militant groups, Version 2.0, January 2019.  At 2.5.2 the UKHO states that the numerous military operations undertaken by the Pakistan government has brought a significant reduction in insurgent activities and terrorist related incidents.

    [8] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 2.99.  See also United Kingdom Home Office (‘UKHO’), Country Policy and Information Note Pakistan: Security and humanitarian situation, including fear of militant groups, Version 2.0, January 2019.  At 7.1.4, the UKHO states:

    ‘Although Karachi was reported as one of Pakistan’s most violent cities, the CRSS stated in its National Action Plan (NAP) audit report (CRSS NAP report), dated June 2018:

    ‘A major source for decline in violence in Pakistan has been the improving situation in Karachi. Although the city was once considered a hub for political/religious militancy and urban crime, Karachi’s security situation has improved dramatically since 2014. Data collected by the CRSS Annual Security Report of 2017 confirms these trends. Target killing alone fell from 1,671 fatalities in 2013 to 84 in 2017. Meanwhile, terrorism incidents have also reduced drastically in the last two years.’

    [9] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 2.70.

21. The Tribunal discussed this country information with the applicant at the hearing in general terms and put to him the inferences that the Tribunal draws from that information.  In response, the applicant said that everywhere in mosques there were bomb blasts and lives were not safe.  Serious threats still remained.  He feared for the safety of his children. He had not returned to Pakistan for six or seven years because it was dangerous.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to why the applicant remains in Australia and does not return to Pakistan. His comments about insecurity in Pakistan do not persuade the Tribunal to depart from independent country information about that and on which it relies in this decision. 

22. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the inferences it draws from that information are correct and that the risk of the applicants suffering serious harm in Pakistan (in Lahore where they will live) is remote.  For all of the reasons given above, there is not a real chance that the applicants will suffer serious harm in Pakistan.  Accordingly, they do not hold a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J(1) of the Act.  For the same reasons that the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicants will suffer serious harm in Pakistan, the Tribunal also finds that there is not a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.  Accordingly, there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal from Australia to the receiving country, Pakistan, there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal concludes that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONCLUSIONS

1. 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

2. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

   Paul Millar
   Member

   
   
   

‘Document fraud is widespread for forms of documentation not issued by a competent central authority such as [National Database and Registration Authority]. Due to the relative ease in acquiring fraudulently obtained genuine documents, such documents are common in Pakistan and are generally preferred over counterfeit documents, as they are difficult to detect.’

At 5.73, DFAT states:

‘[First Information Reports (‘FIR’)] use standard forms with the relevant information written in by hand, and are relatively simple to counterfeit. Reports exist of police accepting bribes to verify fraudulent FIRs. DFAT does not consider the existence of an FIR to constitute evidence that the events described in the FIR actually occurred.’