1621995 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa application of Mr [A], a citizen of Pakistan. Mr [A] claimed to be a member of the Bangash ethnic group and a Shia Muslim, fearing persecution from the Taliban and other Sunni extremist groups due to his religion and ethnicity. He asserted that he had received death threats and that his community, particularly Shia individuals, were targeted with violence, including bombings and kidnappings. Mr [A] contended that relocation within Pakistan was not a viable option as he believed no other part of the country offered safety from such persecution.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr [A] faced a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding threats and targeted violence, and determining if the authorities in Pakistan could offer him adequate protection. A further issue was whether relocation to another part of Pakistan would be a reasonable alternative to seeking protection in Australia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's personal circumstances in light of policy guidelines and country information. It noted that while some Turi Shias from the Kurram Agency had been kidnapped for ransom in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, with a perception of wealth being a factor, the Tribunal focused on the perception of militant groups. The Tribunal found that Mr [A]'s six-year residence in Australia could increase the perception of wealth upon his return, thereby elevating his risk of kidnapping beyond that faced by other Bangash Shias relocating directly from the Kurram Agency. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it was not reasonable for Mr [A] to relocate to any other part of Pakistan to avoid the risk of Convention-based persecution.

The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr [A] is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and therefore meets the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a).