1700423 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 1140

1700423 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1140 (17 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1700423

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:Paul Millar

DATE:17 January 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 17 January 2020 at 4:38pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion – Shia – race – Pashtun – Turi tribe – Imamia Organisation member – attacks by Taliban – refusal to cooperate with Taliban demands – fear of kidnapping – threatening phone calls – family’s return to home village – restrictions on media reporting – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

DFE16 v MIBP [2017] FCCA 308
DFE16 v MIBP [2018] FCAFC 177

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 22 December 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  The applicant, who the Tribunal finds to be a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa on 14 September 2015.[1]  The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 December 2019 to give evidence and present arguments in relation to the issues arising in the review.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of a Pashto speaking interpreter.  The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who attended the hearing.

   [1] The Tribunal's finding on citizenship is based on copies of pages from the applicant's Pakistan passport which he produced at the Tribunal hearing.

   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 he is an educated Turi Shia from Parachinar whose uncle is a high profile community leader.[2]  The Tribunal holds concerns about the applicant’s credibility. Before discussing them, it is necessary to recite the applicant’s evidence at the Tribunal hearing relating to his protection claims.

   The applicant’s evidence at the hearing

   [2] The applicant's evidence to the Department and the Tribunal comprises the contents of the protection visa application forms; his statutory declarations made on 15 April 2016 and 4 December 2019; his evidence at his interview with the delegate for which the Tribunal was provided with a written record and his evidence at the Tribunal hearing.  The Tribunal had access to the Department file relating to the application made by the applicant for a student visa to come to Australia. The materials on that file are not relevant to the grounds on which this review has been determined.

9. The applicant is [an age]-year-old Turi Shia man from the village of X, Parachinar in the Kurram Agency, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.  In April 2007, the Taliban attacked the applicant’s family home.  When asked how that attack was made, the applicant said that prior to April 2007 the Taliban had made a request of the Turi tribe which was not accepted.  The applicant said that his uncle was a ‘malik’, being a leader or elder of the community and this was why they attacked the family home. When again asked how that was done, the applicant said that his family had a huge [house] and the Taliban launched rockets at it.  He said that one rocket was ‘launched’ inside the house, then two launched at one side of the house and two rockets launched at the other side.

10. The applicant said that his family home was situated in the mountains near the border with Afghanistan and he believes that the Taliban launched rockets from there.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that in his statutory declaration made on 15 April 2016, he said that the Taliban attacked ‘[Village 1]’ leaving [number] people dead.  In response, the applicant said that while there was an attack on his family home, at the same time, the Taliban also launched an attack on the house of [Leader A] whom the applicant said was a famous person in [Group 1] to which the applicant’s uncle also belonged. 

11. He said that the village of [Village 1], where that person’s house was located, was in a different area from the applicant’s native village of X.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was claiming that, on the same day, the Taliban launched the attack on his family home and the home of [Leader A].  He said that this person’s home was attacked because the request made by the Taliban to the Turi community was refused by [Group 1].  In the attack on his family home, his uncle’s [relative] was killed.  In the attack on [Leader A’s] home, that person’s grandson or son was killed.

12. The applicant said that [in] August 2007 he had a cousin who was injured in a suicide attack in a market in Parachinar.  [Later in] August 2007, his brother AA was attacked by militants who fired rockets at a vehicle in which he was travelling home after visiting another village.  The rockets missed the vehicle but the glass was shattered and this caused his brother injuries.  When asked why the militants attacked the vehicle in which his brother was travelling, the applicant said that it was again because of the request from the Taliban being refused by [Group 1].  His uncle was an active member in that group and so his family was a target.

13. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether it was for the same reason that his cousin was injured in a suicide attack [in] August 2007.  In response, the applicant said that his uncle occasionally [visited] his cousin’s shop in that market and the Taliban knew that. This was why they targeted that area; to harm his uncle.  The Tribunal reminded the applicant that, in his statutory declaration made on 15 April 2016, he said that after the attack on his brother by militants, the family left the village of X and went to live in Peshawar. In response, the applicant said that was correct.  The Taliban had targeted his brother AA, they had targeted the family home and his cousin’s shop. Therefore his uncle and the other elders said that the family was on a Taliban hit list and, for their safety, they had to move to another area.

14. The applicant, his father, his uncle and his uncle’s wife remained in the village of X.  The applicant remained there because he was undertaking [examinations] at that time.  His father, his uncle and his uncle’s wife remained in the village of X because the tribe and the villagers know that when people have been targeted, if they leave their house they can be easily targeted. His father remained to support and take care of the uncle and the uncle’s wife.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when his uncle, his uncle’s wife and his father went to live in Peshawar.  In response, the applicant said that his uncle and wife remained in the family home in the village X all of the time.  His uncle did participate in a few jirgas, but, since he was a high-profile leader, he could be easily targeted and he avoided trouble.

15. When asked if his father went to live in Peshawar, the applicant said that when he finished his exams in April 2008 his father went with him to Peshawar.  The applicant continued his education in that city.  His father would stay with the family in Peshawar, but, ‘on and off’ returned to and stayed in the village of X.  The applicant’s brother AA had employment in a [business] in Peshawar.  In December 2009, during Muharram, the applicant’s brother was wearing black dress and attending an Imambargah in Peshawar.  He was travelling in a vehicle with other family members when they were stopped by the Taliban who had weapons.  The Taliban told the applicant’s brother that he was lucky that he had his family with him otherwise it would have been the last day of his life.

16. The applicant said that this incident occurred because the Taliban wanted to take revenge on the applicant’s uncle for not accepting their demand. It was for that reason that they targeted members of the uncle’s family which included the applicant’s brother AA.   For their safety, the applicant’s family fled from Peshawar to go and live in Rawalpindi.  This was because they were shocked by the Taliban stopping their vehicle and threatening the applicant’s brother in that manner.  However, one of the applicant’s brothers, BB, was already in Islamabad where he had employment.  The applicant’s father occasionally resided with the family in Rawalpindi, but, this was only for a short time. Otherwise he remained in the village of X, again to be there for his uncle who was highly targeted.

17. The applicant said that he himself stopped living in Peshawar and went to live in Rawalpindi in July 2010.  He remained behind because he was studying and residing at a college in Peshawar.  He did this to be able to complete another certificate in his education.  In Rawalpindi, the applicant’s family lived in rental premises that were across the road from a Sunni mosque.  People from the Mosque regularly came and invited the family to attend prayers in the mosque.  The applicant and his family members would make up excuses as to why they could not attend.  In December 2010, around the time of Muharram, the people from this mosque realised that the family were Shias and students from the madrassa at the mosque threw stones at their house and wrote derogatory remarks about Shias on the walls.

18. This incident caused the family to fear for their safety and they decided that they could not live at that address. For that reason, in April 2011, the applicant’s family stopped living in Rawalpindi and went to live in Islamabad.  At the same time the applicant went to Karachi to undertake studies at a university there.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when his family stopped living in Islamabad. In response, the applicant said that the problem still existed; people were still preaching and approaching the family. They gave the family ‘trouble’ and, in addition, the applicant’s brother was receiving threats over the telephone which caused him to leave his employment in December 2012.  

19. At that point, the family decided to return to live in the village of X.  The applicant said that the Turi tribe is easily recognised and identified by their accent, their way of worshipping and also the way they dress.  The applicant said that all members of his family left Islamabad and went back to live in the village of X except for his brother BB.  When asked which  applicant said that the telephone calls were for AA and BB as well.  He then said that the family were well-known because of his uncle and, so, there were numerous threats, to the family.

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant what other difficulty or harm his family suffered while living in Islamabad apart from the telephone threats that he had just mentioned.  In response, the applicant said that everyone who was displaced from the Kurram Agency and who relocated to other cities, received threatening telephone calls. He then said that his brother AA received numerous threatening telephone calls causing him to go and work at different branches of the [business] that employed him, working in nine different locations over an eight year period.  The [business] finally told his brother that because he had already worked in different branches, the [business] could no longer support him.

21. When asked if anyone in the family was attacked in Islamabad, the applicant said that his brother BB was attacked in 2013 and, again, in 2016.  In this respect, the Tribunal records that, to the Department, the applicant submitted a report dated [in] July 2013 issued by Pakistan police being a record of the complaint made by the brother-in-law of the applicant’s brother BB, who stated that while the pair were travelling in a car, motorcyclists appeared, tried to stop them and then opened fire on them.[3]  The applicant also submitted to the Department a First Information Report (‘FIR’) dated [in] February 2016 recording a complaint made to police by the applicant’s brother BB, who said that while travelling to a friend’s home he was pursued by people in another vehicle who fired shots at him.[4]

    [3] See folios 46-48 of the Department file.

    [4] See folio 49 of the Department file.

22. The applicant said that after this attack in 2016, his brother left his employment and, in that same year, went back to live in the village of X.  The Tribunal then asked the applicant what difficulties his family suffered after returning to live in the village of X in December 2012. In response, the applicant said that his family was pretty much living in a ‘detention centre’.  Their movements were limited. When the situation deteriorated, they could only stay in the house. The applicant then said that at the moment his mother was very sick and needed treatment for which she would have to go to Islamabad or Peshawar.  However, she refused to do that stating that her two sons had been targeted.

23. The Tribunal then questioned the applicant about his studies at a university in Karachi. The applicant said that he commenced his studies in April 2011 and he completed them in December 2014.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that in his statutory declaration made on 15 April 2016 he related an account of his activities at university for the Imamia Student Organisation (‘ISO’).  In this respect, the applicant said that in addition to being a Shia who actively practised his religion, he became a member of the ISO in 2011.  He said that this was a student level organisation that assisted mainly Shia students financially and also ‘logistically’ in terms of help with accommodation, tuition and like issues at the university.

24. In his declaration, the applicant said that in 2012 he was responsible for [a program] from students. The following year he was made [an office bearer] and was responsible for arranging and organising money to give to students who needed assistance. In 2014, he was made [another office bearer] in a particular unit of the ISO responsible for overseeing the organisation’s overall operation.  Throughout his involvement with the ISO, the applicant attended regular meetings and he became well-known within the student community at his university.

25. At the hearing, the applicant adopted this account and said that it was correct.  The Tribunal noted that in his declaration, the applicant also said that there were disputes and tensions between Shia and Sunni students on the campus. With that in mind, the Tribunal asked the applicant what difficulties or harm he suffered while at the university for being Shia and an active member of the ISO.  In response, the applicant said that there was a lot of trouble and issues in the university because Shia students were a minority and there were many people from Sunni extremist groups who targeted Shias.

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was ever attacked when he was at university. In response, the applicant said that he was attacked twice while outside the campus.  He said that the first time he was attacked was in September 2014 when he had travelled out of the place where he was staying to go to a hospital to seek medical treatment as he was not well.  The hospital was about 20 minutes’ walk from his home and, while on his way there, he discovered that people were following him. He walked faster to evade them, but they pursued him and demanded that he stop or they would shoot him.

27. The applicant jumped into some bushes and hid in them because he could hear the click of a pistol.  The people chasing him fired at him. He stayed hiding in the bushes for about 15 minutes until he thought that these people had gone away.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when he was next attacked. In response, the applicant said that the next attack occurred [in] April 2015 in Karachi while he was on his way to a job interview having completed his classes.  He went past a mosque devoted to the Sunni extremist group, the ‘SSP’. He said that whenever he walked around that area he took extra precautions as, in the past, people from that mosque attacked ISO student members.

28. The applicant said that, on this occasion, he was travelling on a motorcycle sitting behind his friend when he noticed in the rear vision mirror that people were following them.  These people overtook the applicant’s motorcycle and told him and his friend to stop.  The applicant’s friend at the same time noticed that the first motorcycle signalled to another motorcycle that ‘these are the people’ to target.  The rider on the first motorcycle signalled to the second motorcycle ‘shoot him’, but, they all approached the location where police and rangers were stationed. The applicant remained there and the people who had been pursuing them rode off.

1. The applicant said that he spoke to the police at the scene and asked them for protection, but, the police said that they could not help him.  The applicant remained with the police for about five minutes and then went back to the place where he was staying.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he decided to leave Pakistan after this particular incident. In response, the applicant referred to the first incident in September 2014 saying that he had had a difficult life at university. This caused him to lose weight and his family noticed that. They were very concerned about him being in Karachi. Once they found out about ‘the incident’, the Tribunal understanding the applicant to be referring to the incident in September 2014, he then explained ‘everything’ to them as to what he had been experiencing.

2. The applicant’s brother told him that it was not safe for him anywhere he went and so he should leave Pakistan and seek protection in another country.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that he said that in April 2015 he was on his way to a job interview when the second incident occurred. The Tribunal put to the applicant that this suggested that he was in fact planning to remain in Pakistan.  In response, the applicant said that he had seen an agent about obtaining a visa for another country and was told the chances were poor for Turis to get a student visa. For that reason, the applicant thought that while he would still try to leave Pakistan, in the meantime he would also pursue employment while he was there.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant where he lived once completing his studies at university in December 2014. In response, the applicant said that he left Karachi and went to live in the village of X with his family. He said that on 1 April 2015 he returned to Karachi and remained there until 17 April. After that he went back to live in the village of X until leaving Pakistan to come to Australia in August 2015. He said that, in that period, he went to Islamabad on five or six occasions when the agent who was assisting him to get a visa asked for paperwork.

4. The applicant said that he was also a member of the Imamia Organisation (‘IO’), a claim he advanced in his statutory declaration made on 4 December 2019.  He said that the IO was for those people who had completed their studies.  When asked what activities he carried out for the IO, the applicant said that when with the ISO, he was supporting [a program], collecting funds and helping poor students.  The Tribunal asked the applicant what activities he undertook for the IO once returning to live in the village of X after completing his studies in December 2014.  In response, the applicant said that he helped to arrange seminars for college students to encourage them to study and complete tertiary education in any field.  He said that, in addition, he would collect funds for people who were financially disadvantaged and help them with their university fees.

   Credibility concerns

   Evidence about living across the road from a Sunni extremist mosque

5. As stated above, the applicant told the Tribunal that, after fleeing from Peshawar in December 2009, the family went to live in rental premises in Rawalpindi across the road from a Sunni mosque.  The applicant said that this mosque was Deobandi, extremist and had followers coming from Laskhar-e-Jhangvi.  They would invite the applicant’s family to come and attend the mosque.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when they began doing that.  In response, the applicant said that people from the mosque would visit the family weekly asking why they did not come and attend prayers.

6. The applicant said that, once it came to the time of Muharram, they saw that the family were celebrating that event and found out the family’s accent, from which they decided that the family were Shias.  At that point students from the madrassa (at the mosque) started throwing stones at the family’s home.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that from December 2009, when the family started living in these rental premises, people from the mosque across the road came and invited them to attend.  In response, the applicant said that these people were approaching and knocking on the door every time.  They asked the family to come to the mosque and pray with them. The family made excuses, saying that they were working or were too busy and could not attend.  When Muharram time came and the family had to do charitable works and change their clothes, then these people found out that the family were Shias.

7. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, in his statutory declaration of 15 April 2016, he said that in December 2010 students from the mosque threw stones at the family home and wrote derogatory remarks about Shias on walls.  In response, the applicant said that was correct. When asked what trouble the family had with these people prior to that time, the applicant said that they would come and ask the family to join them in the mosque. It was only after Muharram that they discovered the family were Shias and madrassa students would throw stones at the family home and write that Shias were infidels. 

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant when his family first found out that this mosque was devoted to Sunni extremism.  In response, the applicant first said that once the students threw stones at the house, the family decided that they had to leave that property for their safety.  The applicant then said that before Muharram people from the mosque were always visiting and preaching to them.  The family had that fear at the back of their minds that these people would discover that they were Shias.  The family ‘had that doubt’ all of the time.  After Muharram they found out that the family were Shias and the doubt held by the family became reality.

9. When asked what other trouble the family had with these people after stones were thrown at their house in December 2010, the applicant said that they found out that the family had a different accent and then found out they were of a different religion (Shia Islam).  The applicant then said that the family were thinking that after the fighting in the Kurram Agency many Sunnis had been displaced to live in city areas and most of them joined Sunni extremist or terrorist groups. Once the people from the mosque found out that the family were Shias from Parachinar, the family could see that they could be easily targeted by these people.  For that reason, the family made the decision that it was not safe to live in those premises and that they had to move.

10. The Tribunal again asked the applicant what trouble the family had with these people after the occasion on which stones were thrown at their house in December 2010.  In response, the applicant said that after that incident the family thought that they could easily be identified, attacked and kidnapped at any moment.  The family decided after that incident that they had to live somewhere else for their safety.  When asked whether any further harm was carried out by these people from the mosque after December 2010, the applicant said that after the incident in which stones were thrown at their home, the family took ‘immediate action’ and the elders decided that the family had been identified and recognised within the community.  The family took quick action and relocated to Islamabad. They did not stay long in Rawalpindi after the stone-throwing incident.

11. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he said that his family always gave excuses when people from the mosque came and invited them to attend prayers at the mosque.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his family did that because they were afraid that these people could be Sunni extremists. In response, the applicant said that ‘of course’ there is a Sunni mentality that if a Sunni kills a Shia, the Sunni will be rewarded in heaven.  If a Sunni died fighting a Shia, the Sunni would go to a high point in paradise and be a martyr.  The applicant understood that was the mentality of these people and the family always had that fear about them.

12. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it had difficulty accepting his account of this period in which his family lived in Rawalpindi.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that, according to his account, his family came to live in Rawalpindi due to danger they perceived in both the village of X and Peshawar, due to being Shias and due to being in the same family as the applicant’s uncle.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that, therefore, it had difficulty accepting that his family would choose to live across the road from a Sunni extremist mosque in Rawalpindi, whose followers could easily have found out that the applicant’s family were Shias and harmed them.  Accordingly, the Tribunal put to the applicant that it had difficulty accepting that his family would risk their safety by living at that location.

13. In response, the applicant said that when the family moved to live in another area they could not find out that the area could be ‘one of those places’; where the mentality could be different.  As soon as people from the mosque began preaching to the family, after Muharram and when they did those things to the family, the family found out that they were in real danger.  The Tribunal was not persuaded by that response. The applicant indicated that from the time these people approached the family to attend their mosque, the family perceived danger given they were making excuses to these people that they could not attend.  The Tribunal understood the applicant’s evidence to be that his family always feared that these people could be extremists who would find out that they were Shias.  Further, in his evidence at the hearing, the applicant said a number of times that he and his family were identifiable as Turi Shias.  Similarly, in his declaration made on 15 April 2016, the applicant said that he would be ‘easily identified as a Turi Shia’ in other parts of Pakistan away from his native area.  In his family’s claimed circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that they would live across the road from a mosque devoted to Sunni extremism. 

14. The Tribunal put to the applicant that stones were thrown at their house in December 2010 and, according to his evidence, that is when the family decided that they had to leave that area for their safety. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was concerned by his evidence that they did not actually move out of those premises and go and live elsewhere until April 2011.  In response to that concern, the applicant said that it was not easy to rent or move to a different property while they find out that ‘you’ are Turi and they do check ‘your ID’.  The ‘people’ have hatred for the Turi people.  While the applicant makes those claims, his family found accommodation in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. The applicant himself found accommodation in Karachi while attending university.

15. His response to the Tribunal’s concern is not persuasive. The applicant said that following the stone throwing incident the family took quick action to leave that area. However, the family actually remained living in that area for at least another four months.  In their claimed circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that the family would remain for a number of months in an area in which Sunni extremists from a mosque across the road had discovered that they were Shias.   Overall, the Tribunal’s concern about the family choosing to live opposite a Sunni extremist mosque and not flee from that area until some months after rocks were thrown at their home by people from that mosque, not only reflects poorly on the applicant’s credibility as a witness, but, also casts significant doubt over the credibility of his claims that, in effect, wherever they lived, his family were targeted by others.

    Evidence about incidents of harm in Karachi

16. In his statutory declaration made on 15 April 2016, the applicant said that when he was at university he received intimidation and harassment, including threatening telephone calls.  The callers said that Shias are not Muslims, the applicant was an infidel Shia from Parachinar, that he should cease his activities for the ISO and, if found outside the university, he would be kidnapped and eliminated.  In his statutory declaration made on 4 December 2019, the applicant again said that when he lived in Karachi he received threats over the telephone, this time stating that he believed that the caller may have known him from Parachinar.

17. Further, in his earlier declaration, the applicant said that he did not go to the police to complain about these calls because they came from private numbers and he thought that the police would not take any action. He said that was because most of the police were corrupt, had connections to extremists and were sympathetic to extremist ideology.  At the hearing, the Tribunal reminded the applicant of this evidence and he said that following the first incident in September 2014, he approached the police but they did not help him. He said that following the ‘second incident’, with the help of a friend who was a Karachi resident, they managed to lodge an FIR. 

18. The applicant then said that the police initially said they did not want to do that, but, through the assistance of the friend, the applicant submitted an FIR for that matter.  The Tribunal then put to the applicant that, to the Department, he had submitted a document dated [in] November 2014 issued by police in Karachi containing a complaint he made to them that [in] November 2014 he received a telephone call in which he was told to leave ‘this place’ or be killed.[5]  In this complaint, the applicant said that in the light of that threat he feared the destruction of his career and requested that the police help him.  In response, the applicant said that he did lodge that application through the support of his friend.

    [5] See folio 51 of the Department file.

19. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it understood his evidence to be that he got a number of threatening telephone calls and not just one as this complaint to the police indicated.  In response, the applicant said that ‘it varied’ depending on his activities.  At different times, there were different threats.  If his activities increased, then the threats also increased.  The Tribunal was not persuaded by that response because the applicant was clear in his evidence in both of his statutory declarations that he received a number of threatening telephone calls. Indeed, in his statutory declaration made on 15 April 2016, the applicant said that despite changing his mobile telephone number ‘multiple times’ he continued to receive threatening calls. The Tribunal can see no valid reason why, if making a report to the police about that, he would mention receiving only one such call.

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he said in his declaration of April 2016, that he never approached the police about the threatening telephone calls he received, when, according to the document he submitted to the Department, he approached the police in November 2014 about a threatening telephone call.  In response, the applicant repeated the evidence he had already given that on the first occasion he went to the police to seek help they did nothing. He said that he was referring to the incident that took place in September 2014. He then said that on the ‘second occasion’, he went to the police with a friend and through the assistance of a friend he applied for an FIR.  As to what he meant by the second occasion, the applicant said he was referring to attending the police station in November 2014 as indicated in the document he submitted to the Department.

21. In this respect, in his statutory declaration of 15 April 2016, after giving an account of the incident that took place in September 2014, the applicant said that he went to the police to complain about that, but did not make a statement because the police said that violence and targeted killing was normal in Karachi and they could not help him. The applicant then said in his declaration that had he wanted to make a statement about the incident, he would have to have paid a bribe to police and he would not do that. He said that he would not get help from the police and therefore he did not make a statement. The applicant then said:

    ‘However for record complaints were submitted to police on the following dates for reference. [a date in] November 2014, [a date in] April 2015]’

22. In his protection visa application form, the applicant also said that the ‘following application for FIR’ was submitted on those same two dates, the applicant stating in that part of the form that he had tried to lodge an FIR against his attackers, but the police were uncooperative, demanded bribes and ‘refused to register FIR’.[6]  The Tribunal understands the reference to the date [in] November 2014 to relate to the police document containing his complaint about receiving a threatening telephone call.  While the Tribunal acknowledges that reference, in his declaration of April 2016 and in his protection visa application form, the applicant specifically claimed in that declaration that he did not go to the police about the threatening telephone calls that he was receiving.  As already stated, the Tribunal is concerned that the complaint made to police in November 2014 is about one telephone call when the applicant said in his declarations that he received many such calls.

    [6] See folio 20 of the Department file.

23. Further, with respect to the reference to [a specified date in] April 2015, to the Department, the applicant submitted a document issued by police in Karachi on [that date] recording a complaint made by the applicant that on [an earlier day in] April 2015 he was pursued by people on a motorcycle threatening to shoot him.[7]  The Tribunal was concerned by this evidence because, in his declaration made on 15 April 2016, although the applicant does mention an incident of harm taking place in April 2015, it was that on [that specified date] ‘some unknown people fired gunshots at [his] house’. 

    [7] See folios 52-53 of the Department file.

24. When reminded of this evidence by the Tribunal at the hearing, the applicant said that this account was incorrect.  He said that, in fact, this claim in his declaration was a reference to the home in which his family lived with his uncle being attacked in April 2007.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why his first declaration contained no mention of him being pursued in April 2015 by people on a motorcycle threatening to kill him.  In response, the applicant said that his lawyer told him that the FIR clearly detailed that particular incident and therefore the applicant did not need to explain it in detail in his declaration. 

25. The Tribunal was not persuaded by that response because the declaration is somewhat comprehensive and detailed. It concerns the Tribunal that although the applicant produced a document to corroborate his claim about this particular incident, it was omitted from what is a lengthy account in this declaration. Further, according to the declaration, at that time in mid April 2015, the incident of harm comprised shots being fired at the applicant’s family home.  Overall, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about these incidents of harm when he was in Karachi and his dealings with police about that, to be inconsistent and reflect poorly on his credibility.

    Concerns about the movements of family members after August 2007

26. The applicant said that, after attacks in August 2007, which were directed at his uncle and his family, his mother and siblings fled to live in Peshawar.   However, he remained behind in Parachinar where he was at risk of being harmed in any further attacks aimed at his uncle in whose home he continued to live.  The Tribunal was concerned that the applicant did not also go with his mother and siblings to Peshawar, if the family had fled there for their safety.  When this concern was put to him, the applicant said that had he gone to Peshawar with his family in August 2007 he would have had to undertake a further two years of study.  He said that he stayed and ‘came back’ for exams from ‘the board’ so he could have certification from that area.  The Tribunal put to the applicant it was also concerned that the applicant’s father would also have remained behind in Peshawar, when, according to his evidence, elders told the family that they should leave the village of X for their safety.  In response, the applicant said that it was because his uncle had done so much for the community and tribe, making sacrifices for them. Out of respect for his older brother, his father could not just leave him alone. 

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, when his family fled from Peshawar in December 2009, he did not go with them.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that he said that they had done this in fear for their safety after the Taliban had stopped the vehicle in which his brother and other family members were travelling and threatened to harm his brother.  In response, the applicant said that his family ‘had an assurance’ that the college he was attending in Peshawar was in a safe area.  He did not go out of the hostel in the college. He remained there to complete the final six months of his education. Further, the college was in a [specified zone] and the army had a presence there.  The applicant said that the principal of the college was usually appointed from [overseas] and was a professor from [a named] University.  So the area was relatively safer.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant why his brother BB remained living in Islamabad if the rest of the family fled from that city for their safety in December 2012 and went back to live in the village of X.  In response, the applicant said that his brother remained there for financial reasons to support the family as the applicant’s other brother AA had left his employment.  He thought that he would be alone and had changed addresses in Islamabad.  His brother thought that even though there was risk to his safety he had to support the family financially.  However, he could not be safe by changing addresses.

3. When asked why this brother returned to live in the village of X if he was supporting the family, the applicant said that when his family heard about the attack he suffered in 2016 they told him that he had to come back to the village of X.  They forced him to return to the native village.  When asked how the family supported themselves in the village of X without the financial support of his brother BB, the applicant said that the family were in a financial crisis. They used to have a better life. His father received a pension from the [business] for which he used to work. They had farmland next to their house.  AA was doing tuition work in the family home.

4. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was also concerned that his two brothers had been receiving telephone threats, but, were not ever seriously harmed.  The Tribunal acknowledged that there had been two attempts to harm BB, but, had the Taliban seriously wanted to harm the family, they could easily have gone to his brothers’ workplaces or the homes where they lived to do that.  In response, the applicant said that attempts and threats and the fear of threats, existed from 2007. There had been attempts in the past, but, luckily, his brothers had escaped threats. Danger existed anytime and anywhere regardless of where they were living.  There could be any moment, they had to flee from the danger of being threatened or targeted many times.  Their lives were not secure in the family home either, which could be attacked at any time; within two minutes he could lose every member of his family.

5. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, on the one hand, he claimed that his family were in great danger in the village of X which is why they originally stopped living there and he was claiming protection on the ground that he would suffer serious harm if he went back there.  However, on the other hand, the applicant’s family had resumed living in the village of X since December 2012 and he himself resumed living there from December 2014 before coming to Australia.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that his and his family’s willingness to resume living in the village of X seemed inconsistent with the applicant claiming protection on the ground that he would suffer serious harm if he returned there. 

6. In response, the applicant said that while they had all resumed living in the village of X, he asked what type of living it was. He said that it was like being in a jail because they were not free to go to any place.  When security was poor they stayed in their home. Recently the situation returned to what it was like in 2007. There was danger at any moment.  They chose to go back to the village of X because they were all Turis and felt relatively safer there.  He then said that it was not only him who had been attacked and threatened. There had been a few attacks on his brothers.  If there was any opportunity to seek protection, he would take it.

7. The Tribunal found unconvincing the applicant’s evidence about the need for his family to change the locations in which they lived and move to other cities for their safety, but, certain family members, namely, the applicant himself, remaining in the place from which they had fled.  In the applicant’s case, he stayed in the village of X and in Peshawar, after his family had fled from there, believing that they were being targeted by militants.  In those claimed circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would remain in his native village to finish his education and, similarly, does not accept he would remain behind in Peshawar, notwithstanding his claims about his college being in a secure area.  Likewise, the Tribunal found difficult to accept his account of one of his brothers remaining in Islamabad for almost four years after his family fled from that city in fear for their safety.

8. The applicant’s claims that his brother changed addresses a number of times and had to support the family did not overcome the Tribunal’s concern. This brother eventually returned to live with the family in 2016 removing whatever financial support he was providing them. At any rate, the applicant said that his father still received a pension and further in the hearing he said that the family sold a property they had purchased in Islamabad supporting themselves from the proceeds of that sale.  If the family could live without this brother’s financial support from his work in Islamabad and if the family were being targeted, the Tribunal did not accept that this brother remained in Islamabad for some years after the family fled from there.

9. Added to this, was the fact that the applicant’s brothers could live in Islamabad and receive telephone threats, but were never seriously harmed.  If they were of such adverse interest to the Taliban or militants, one could expect that they would have found where his brothers were working or, for that matter, where they were living. The applicant’s claims that they were always at risk does not really resolve this concern.  Finally, having given unpersuasive and unconvincing evidence about his family having to relocate to different places in Pakistan for their safety was the concern that the family would then go back to the village of X from which they had previously fled for their safety. The applicant made no claim that he or his family suffered any harm while they were living there in this latter period.  Notwithstanding his claims that they lived in fear and their movements were restricted, the Tribunal found incongruous the applicant’s claim that he and his family lived in an area, in his family’s case, for some years, and, in his case, for some months, none of them suffering harm, but, an area to which the applicant claims he cannot return due to a fear of being harmed.

   FINDINGS

   Findings on credibility

10. Considered cumulatively, the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility lead the Tribunal to find that he is not a witness of truth and that his evidence, in particular, about him and his family suffering harm, is embellished and unreliable.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and his family are Pashtun Turi Shias from a village in Parachinar in the Kurram Agency.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s uncle is a community leader who has the background as claimed by the applicant.  The Tribunal will accept his claims that in April 2007 the Taliban attacked the home of the applicant’s uncle in which the applicant and his family lived. The Tribunal will accept that there was also an attack in August 2007 in which a cousin was injured and in which the Taliban were trying to target the applicant’s uncle.

11. The Tribunal is also willing to accept that the applicant and his family lived in different cities in Pakistan for varying periods and then, finally, they all returned to live in the village of X.  However, because the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth and that his evidence about him and his family suffering harm is unreliable, the Tribunal has no credible evidence as to why they moved from place to place.  The Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about his brother AA being attacked in August 2007 and December 2009.  The Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about his brothers receiving threatening telephone calls and his brother BB being attacked on two occasions.

12. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant undertook activities for the ISO and IO in Pakistan. However, due to its concerns about his credibility, the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims that he received threatening telephone calls when he lived in Karachi and that on two occasions he was pursued and threatened by certain individuals in September 2014 and April 2015 as he claimed.  In his two statutory declarations, the applicant also complained about the way he and other Shias were treated by Sunnis when he was at university.  In his declaration of April 2016, the applicant referred to Shias facing discrimination from Sunni students and professors; the presence of extremist Sunni students on the campus and Sunnis calling him an infidel when he walked on the street. 

13. These claims also included a Sunni extremist student telling the applicant he looked like a Hazara and this person and his associates not speaking to the applicant.  A further claim was that a Sunni student from the applicant’s native area was on his campus and told people that the applicant was not a real Muslim.  Finally, the applicant claimed that while doing a work placement in a district in the Punjab for a [specified] project, he saw a derogatory comment about Shias on a toilet wall, following the end of Ramadan when Sunni colleagues realised that he was Shia.  He claimed that the manager of the project told the applicant to leave for his safety, the applicant completing one week of his placement instead of the requisite four week period.

14. Because the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth and his evidence about suffering harm in Pakistan is embellished and unreliable, the Tribunal is sceptical of these claims.  In particular, the applicant’s claim about leaving a work placement in fear of harm struck the Tribunal as similar to and a continuation of his claims about his family having to change their address and location due to a fear of harm. Accordingly, while the Tribunal is willing to accept that he saw a derogatory comment written about Shias on a toilet wall, the Tribunal does not believe that he left this work placement for his safety.

15. At best, these various incidents are very isolated and minor instances of harassment or discrimination that do not amount to serious harm.  While the applicant claimed that these incidents and made him fear for his safety and change address in Karachi a number of times, he nevertheless completed a university degree over a number of years.  Given the applicant’s unconvincing and unreliable evidence about events that he claims caused his family to move from location to location, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to why the applicant changed his address in Karachi.

16. Beyond those very isolated and minor incidents just mentioned, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence before it that the applicant or any member of his family suffered harm in Pakistan, after the attack on the home of the applicant’s uncle in April 2007.  The Tribunal has no credible evidence that anyone in Pakistan seeks to harm the applicant or his family. The Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to why the applicant left Pakistan to come to Australia and why he does not want to return to Pakistan.

17. In reaching these findings on credibility, the Tribunal took into account documents submitted by the applicant to corroborate his claims.  Earlier in this decision, the Tribunal mentioned documents emanating from Pakistan police relating to the applicant receiving a threatening telephone call in November 2014 and being pursued by assailants in April 2015. The Tribunal mentioned similar police documents relating to claimed attacks on the applicant’s brother BB in 2013 and 2016. 

18. As discussed above, the contents of the police document relating to the threatening telephone call in November 2014 caused the Tribunal concern as the applicant claimed that he received many threatening telephone calls.  As discussed above, in his declaration of April 2016, the applicant said that in April 2015 people fired shots at his family home and he did not claim to have been pursued by assailants at that time.  In addition, the contents of these documents do not persuade the Tribunal to overlook the applicant’s highly improbable account of his family choosing to live opposite a Sunni extremist mosque or his unconvincing evidence about the family having to live in different places for their safety.

19. For those reasons, these documents do not overcome or outweigh the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility. Further, available country information indicates that document fraud is widespread in Pakistan and that includes documents issued by Pakistan authorities that contain false information.[8]  When this country information was put to the applicant, he said that as a member of the IO and ISO they had information and he would never think of giving false documents to the Tribunal. He then said that he gave authority to the Tribunal to trace his documents.  He said that his brother’s employment in Islamabad could be checked.

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

20. The Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant undertook activities for the ISO and IO as he claimed and, therefore, the Tribunal accepts the content of a letter from the ISO that he submitted to the Department to corroborate those claims.[9]  The Tribunal is also willing to accept the content of a letter from the [Group 1] in Parachinar that the applicant submitted to the Department to the effect that his uncle is a malik or leader in the community and that his uncle’s home was attacked in April 2007.[10]  However, for the reasons given and taking into account available country information, the Tribunal does not give evidentiary weight to the documents mentioned above that have been purportedly issued by police in Pakistan.

    [9]  See folio 44 of the Department file.

    [10] See folio 45 of the Department file.

21. The Tribunal sees no purpose in making enquiries to verify the employment of his brother in Islamabad as that would not demonstrate that his claims about his family suffering harm in Pakistan are true.  His brother could have obtained and left that employment for reasons the applicant has withheld. The Tribunal also sees no purpose in enquiries being made in relation to the four documents emanating from Pakistan police, given that country information indicates that the police are willing to issue or verify documents that contain false information.

22. In reaching its findings on credibility, the Tribunal also took into consideration a report dated 7 December 2019 from a psychologist which was submitted to the Tribunal.[11]  The psychologist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a major depressive disorder and presenting with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder for which the applicant has been prescribed medication.  The psychologist refers to the applicant expressing fears for the safety of his family in Pakistan and that returning there will be detrimental to his mental health.  The psychologist also states that the applicant remains vulnerable due to, significantly, the uncertainty of his visa status which is a cause of worry for him.

    [11] See folios 43-44 of the Tribunal file.

23. With respect to the diagnosis of the psychologist, the Tribunal must record that the applicant was well able to comprehend the Tribunal’s questions and respond to them at the hearing. He had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing.  The psychologist’s diagnosis does not persuade the Tribunal to overlook the concerns that it holds about the applicant’s credibility.  The psychologist’s diagnosis is based on symptoms and events that the applicant has self-reported to him and, unlike the Tribunal, the psychologist is not in a position to assess the credibility of claims made by the applicant about his and his family’s circumstances in Pakistan.  His mental state as assessed does not explain those aspects of his evidence about which the Tribunal holds concerns and which the Tribunal finds to impugn his credibility.

    Findings on whether the applicant holds a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J(1) of the Act

24. The Tribunal now turns to an assessment of whether the applicant holds a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J(1).   In doing so, the Tribunal has assessed whether there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Parachinar and Karachi.  Accordingly, the following country information relates to an assessment of that risk in those locations. 

25. There are approximately 30 million Pashtuns living in Pakistan.[12] Pashtuns form a large community in Karachi.[13]  They participate in both public and private sector activity.[14] In terms of the treatment of Pashtuns based solely on their ethnicity, DFAT advances the following assessment (verbatim):

    ‘DFAT assesses that Pashtuns face a medium risk of official discrimination in the form of terrorism-related and racial profiling by security forces in areas where they are a minority, particularly in Punjab. Pashtuns in Pashtun majority areas or locations where individuals have family or social connections face a low risk of official discrimination. Pashtuns who are not Turis, or are not linked to the ANP, face a similar risk of violence as other ethnic groups in Pakistan in the same locations.’[15]

    [12] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019.  At 2.7 DFAT states that the population of Pakistan is 207.7 million.  At 2.9 DFAT states that Pashtuns comprise 15.4 per cent of the population of Pakistan.

    [13] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019.  At 3.5 DFAT states that the largest Pashtun communities live in Karachi, which hosts the largest population of Pashtuns in the world.

    [14] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019.  At 3.6 DFAT states that Pashtuns are represented at all levels of society and Pakistan historically dominating employment in the transport sector, but, also, being well represented in Pakistan's security forces.

    [15] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, at 3.12.  With respect to Pashtuns most likely to receive the discrimination referred to in this quotation, see also DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, at 3.10.  There DFAT refers to Pashtuns migrating within Pakistan to cities like Karachi and Lahore where they could be subjected to ‘ethnic profiling’ and demands for bribes from security officials as well as the ‘blocking’ of their identity cards.

26. On the subject of violence and security more generally in Pakistan, available country information indicates that there continues to be a significant decline in the number of reported terrorist attacks in Pakistan.[16]  This decline in terrorist violence has also occurred in Karachi.[17] This decrease in Pakistan, including Karachi, has been attributed to various security operations launched by the Pakistan army since 2014.[18]  This has also led to a significant reduction in serious crime in Pakistan especially in Karachi.[19] 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.[20]  Violence in Karachi also concerns supporters and members of different political parties attacking each other, including the ANP.[21]

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

    [17] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019.  At 2.69 DFAT described the decrease in attacks in Karachi, compared to 2017, as ‘62 per cent’.

    [18] 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 brought a significant reduction in insurgent activities and terrorist related incidents.

    [19] 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.’

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

    [21] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019.  At 3.3, DFAT states as follows:

    ‘The steady migration of Pashtuns from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the former FATA to Karachi has reportedly contributed to violence between the armed wings of major political parties, including the Mohajir-based Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM, see Mutahidda Qaumi Movement), the Sindh-based Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Pashtun-based Awami National Party (see Awami National Party (ANP)), and the TTP.’

1. Specifically with respect to the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, according to country information, the highest number of terrorist attacks in 2018 took place in that province, the number of attacks being 125 with 196 people killed, out of a population of 30 million.[22]  This represented a decrease of approximately 19% in terms of terrorist attacks taking place in that province.[23]  According to DFAT, local observers, including officials in the province, also reported a trend of increasing security, a reduction in reporting killings and reduced fear within the community in 2018.[24]

   [22] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 2.69. 

   [23] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 2.8, 2.69.  At 2.8, DFAT states that the population of the former FATA in which Parachinar is situated is 4 million people. 

   [24] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 2.79.

2. With respect to Shia Muslims, in 2018, they were the targets of seven terrorist or militant attacks.[25] Since the launch of security operations in 2014, the frequency of sectarian attacks has reduced each year.[26]  Although, historically, Shias have represented a higher proportion of the casualties in sectarian violence, most Shia in Pakistan face a low risk of sectarian violence.[27]  DFAT states it has no evidence of systemic discrimination against Shias in terms of gaining employment in the public or private sector.[28]

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

   [26] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 2.91.  DFAT states at 2.91:

   [27] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019 at 3.99, 3.104. See also United

   [28] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.96.

3. With respect to Pashtun Turi Shias, their population is around 500,000 people.[29]  A concentration of this population in small geographic areas, particularly in and around Parachinar and the Kurram Agency, makes them vulnerable to attack.[30] They are also vulnerable due to gains made by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the former FATA which has led to the killing of Shia in Parachinar.[31]  With respect to the period prior to 2014 (when government security operations commenced), Turis were targeted for being Shia and killed on roads, in particular, the road that links the Kurram Agency with Peshawar.[32]  Then, in the first half of 2017, in three separate attacks on Turis in Parachinar, more than 120 people were killed.[33]

   [29] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.13.

   [30] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.13.

   [31] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.14.

   [32] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.14.  DFAT states:

   ‘Between 2008 and 2014, Turis faced significant violence. Groups such as the TTP targeted Turis for their Shi’a faith (see Shi’a). Militants frequently stopped and killed Turis travelling on roads. A significant spike in profiling and targeted killings occurred between 2009 and 2014 along the Tall-Parachinar road, which links Kurram Agency and Peshawar.’

   [33] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.15.  At 3.15, DFAT states:

   ‘Deaths from terrorist attacks in Kurram Agency significantly increased in 2017. DFAT is aware of three attacks targeting Turis in Parachinar during the first six months of 2017, on the grounds of their Shi’a faith (see Shi’a):

   ·on 21 January 2017, militants detonated a remote-controlled improvised explosive device in a marketplace in Parachinar;

   ·on 31 March 2017 a suicide bomber attacked an imambargah in Parachinar; and

   ·on 24 June 2017 two devices detonated in a market in Parachinar.’

4. DFAT expressed the effect of military operations against militant groups, with respect to Turis, in the following terms:

   ‘However, operations Zarb-e-Azb, Radd ul Fasaad and associated counter-terrorism activities (see Security Operations) significantly decreased the number and severity of attacks on Turis. In the first quarter of 2018, the Turi community reported two attacks, including one involving an improvised explosive device that targeted women and children. This compares to community estimates that 200 Turis were killed and 1000 injured in 2017. DFAT is unable to verify these claims. Turis reported significantly fewer road attacks in 2018, as military operations have forced militants into the mountains. This has restored confidence within the community for individuals (although not large groups) to travel on the Tall-Parachinar road, although only between dawn and dusk.’[34]

   [34] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.16.

5. These same operations have restricted freedom of movement and limited the community’s access to essential services and trade opportunities.[35] Discrimination and violence towards Turis remains ‘significant’ in the Kurram Agency due to the government’s concerns about Iranian influence and the greater presence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.[36]  Turis who leave the Kurram Agency tend to relocate to other ‘known Shia areas’ including Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Karachi.[37]  In terms of both official and societal discrimination against them, DFAT states as follows:

   ‘DFAT assesses that Turis a face similar risk of official discrimination as other Pashtuns based on ethnicity (see Pashtuns), and no additional risk of official discrimination based on their religion (see Shi’a).

   Turis tend to live in enclaves with other Turis, mitigating societal discrimination. Outside these areas, Turis face a moderate risk of societal discrimination based on their Shi’a religion (see Shi’a) and historical animosity with the Bangash tribe.’[38]

   [35] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.17.

   [36] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.19.

   [37] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.21.

   [38] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.24-3.25.

6. Overall, with respect to attacks against Turis, DFAT draws the following conclusion:

   ‘DFAT notes a trend of decreased reports of attacks against Turis in 2018 due to the improved security situation in Parachinar and Kurram Agency. However, while this trend is likely to continue in 2019, attacks and violence against Turis can, and may still occur. As such, DFAT assesses Turis in Kurram Agency still face a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups, because of their Shi’a faith. Turis in other parts of the country tend to face a level of risk similar to other non-Hazara Shi’a groups.’[39]

   [39] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 3.26.

7. Based on this country information, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in the village of X in Parachinar is remote.  Although DFAT assesses discrimination against Turi Shias in that area as ‘significant’, DFAT also assesses the risk of Turi Shias suffering official discrimination based on ethnicity to be the same as the risk for other Pashtuns.  DFAT sees no additional risk of official discrimination to them based on being Shia.  Those Turis who live away from areas where other Turis live will face societal discrimination.  The applicant’s native village in the area of Parachinar is where a large concentrated population of Pashtun Turi Shias live and, on that basis, any discrimination the applicant encounters either official or societal is likely to be minimal.  The applicant did not claim to suffer discrimination when he lived in the village of X nor did he claim that his family suffered discrimination there.

8. In terms of violence, DFAT states that Turi Shias in Parachinar are vulnerable to attack from the Taliban and other Sunni extremist groups and those groups have targeted them in the past.  DFAT refers to Turi Shias in the Kurram Agency facing a ‘moderate risk’ of sectarian violence from militant groups.  DFAT defines a moderate risk as ‘sufficient incidents to suggest a pattern of behaviour’, in contrast to a ‘high risk’ which DFAT defines as ‘a strong pattern of incidents’.[40] In this respect, the Tribunal acknowledges the attacks on Turis in Parachinar in 2017 mentioned in country information and the claim made to DFAT about two attacks in the first quarter of 2018.  Although the Tribunal can accept that as a basis for DFAT finding a pattern of behaviour in this respect, the Tribunal must nevertheless also consider this in the context of the overall significant reduction in attacks carried out by militant groups, not only all over Pakistan, but, including, in the Kurram Agency itself, as is demonstrated by the country information set out above in this decision. 

   [40] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 20 February 2019, 6.

9. Accordingly, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in violence when he resumes living in the village of X is remote.  In drawing that inference, the Tribunal also took into consideration the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm travelling back to the village of X from another large city in Pakistan and on the basis that he may travel in and out of Parachinar as needs require. Again, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm on that ground is remote given country information is to the effect that road attacks in that area, so prevalent prior to 2014, have significantly reduced.  In drawing these inferences, the Tribunal also took into consideration that it has no credible evidence before it that the applicant and his family, including even his uncle, suffered harm in Parachinar apart from the two attacks that took place in 2007 on the uncle’s home (also the applicant’s family home) and a market where a cousin’s shop was located. 

10. The Tribunal also assess the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Karachi where he lived for a number of years.  Based on the country information set out above, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in that city is also remote.  The Tribunal can appreciate the risk of the applicant as a Turi Shia who originates from Parachinar suffering discrimination both official and societal.  However, the Tribunal must also consider that Pashtuns form a large significant population in Karachi.  Country information indicates that both Pashtuns and Shias participate in employment in both the public and private sector.  Further, the applicant lived in Karachi for a number of years and encountered no discrimination from Pakistan authorities and the only instances of discrimination or harm that the Tribunal accepts he suffered in Karachi were minor, isolated and fell well short of amounting to serious harm.[41]

    [41] See above [66] - [69].

11. In terms of the risk posed to the applicant by violence in Karachi, country information indicates a significant reduction in both militant and criminal violence in that city. Further, according to country information the primary targets of militant attacks remain security and law enforcement personnel, political leaders and workers. The applicant is not such a person.  While violence still takes place between workers and supporters of political parties, the applicant does not belong to any such party and expressed no wish to become involved with any political party.  Again, the Tribunal must consider that it has no credible evidence that the applicant was attacked, threatened or harassed when he lived in Karachi.  Accordingly, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm due to violence, attacks or threats in Karachi, as a Turi Shia from Parachinar, is remote.

12. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed this country information with the applicant and put to him the inferences that the Tribunal draws from that information.  In response, the applicant asked why people were killed in Parachinar in 2017, if, at the same time, country information asserted that security in Pakistan had improved.   He said that while suicide attacks may have reduced, kidnappings and targeted killings had not.  The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s submission, but, he claims, in effect, to be at risk of harm from Sunni extremist groups.  Country information discusses such groups carrying out attacks which the Tribunal understands could encompass targeted killings, suicide attacks and kidnappings.  Country information is clear that while attacks may continue, there has been a significant reduction in their number carried out by these groups due to security operations undertaken by the Pakistan government in both the Kurram Agency and in Karachi.

13. The applicant also complained that in his native area, movement was restricted due to the fear of attacks in the area but also in terms of travel by road in and out of the area to other cities in Pakistan such as Peshawar.  Country information set out above refers to limits on access to basic services and commercial opportunities imposed by security operations to protect the community in Parachinar which also applies to travelling in and out of that city.  However, the Tribunal does not understand country information to assert that members of the community simply cannot commute within the city or out of it.  The Tribunal can understand that living under security measures and the practical effects of those measures may create apprehension or frustration, but, that falls well short of amounting to serious harm. In the circumstances that prevail in the applicant’s native area, his family subsist and have done so for a number of years after returning there from Islamabad.

14. The applicant said that he was no ordinary (Turi) Shia because he was highly educated, his uncle was a well-known malik in his native area and he had been and would remain an active member of the IO.  The Tribunal will deal with each of these claims in turn.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has undertaken and completed a degree in [occupation 1].  In his statutory declaration made on 4 December 2019, the applicant claimed that this made him a Shia professional and that such people, such as Shia doctors, were attacked by Sunni extremist groups.  The Tribunal has considered these claims, but finds that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm because he is a Turi Shia who has a degree in [occupation 1], is remote. 

15. The applicant has not actually worked as [an occupation 1] in Pakistan and the Tribunal can only speculate about his prospects of working as such on return to Pakistan.  Although the Tribunal will accept that Shia doctors have been attacked in Pakistan that falls well short of demonstrating that there is a real chance that any Shia or Turi Shia who holds a university degree will suffer serious harm.[42]  Country information set out above contains no assertion to that effect and the overall impression conveyed by that information is that there has been a significant reduction in militant attacks, including sectarian attacks.

    [42] See further below in this decision, where the representative’s submissions make reference to attacks on Shia doctors.

16. The applicant also claims that to work as [an occupation 1] he would have to go to locations in Pakistan where there was a greater presence of the Taliban and extremist groups.  The Tribunal could only speculate about whether the applicant will obtain work as a [occupation 1] on return to Pakistan and where such work would require him to live. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s submission on this issue to be far too speculative to find that there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm on that ground.  The applicant also said that there is no work for [his occupation] in his native area, but, that would no doubt be due to the need for [his occupation] in that particular area.  The Tribunal has no evidence or country information before it that the applicant would be denied work as a [occupation 1] and any inability to obtain that work, either in his native area or in Karachi, would more likely be due to competing with others to obtain a position or prevailing economic circumstances.

17. With respect to the applicant’s claim about undertaking activities for the IO, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant undertook activities for the ISO in Karachi and, once completing his studies, he undertook activities for the IO.  The Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant may well resume those activities on return to Pakistan, but, the Tribunal does not accept that this in some way would put him into the profile of a worker or member of a political party.  Further, the Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant suffered harm in Pakistan for undertaking activities for the ISO or IO.  The risk of the applicant suffering serious harm on return to Pakistan for undertaking activities for the IO in either Parachinar or Karachi is remote.

18. With respect to the applicant’s claim about being the nephew of a man who is the malik or leader of a community, the Tribunal accepts that his uncle is such a person and his claims in his statutory declaration of 4 December 2019, that, when he lived in Pakistan, he drove his uncle to tribal meetings and was introduced to other tribal elders by his uncle.  Even so, the Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant suffered harm in Pakistan including on this ground. Indeed, the applicant did not claim that his uncle suffered harm in Pakistan after the attack on his home and the attack on a market where the applicant’s cousin’s shop was located in 2007. 

19. In his statutory declaration of 4 December 2019, the applicant also said that, in his opinion, the community expected him to become the next malik because his uncle had no male children.  He said that although his brother AA was the eldest son of the family, the applicant was more educated and closer to his uncle.  The Tribunal can again only speculate as to whether or not at some point in the future, the applicant may take up the role that his uncle plays.  However, it would be far too speculative to find a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm based on him taking up that role, in addition to the other grounds on which he claims to fear harm.

100.   In terms of living in Karachi, the applicant told the Tribunal that he would be readily identifiable there as a Turi Shia from Parachinar.  The Tribunal accepts that submission, but, for the reasons given above, finds that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Karachi on those grounds is remote.  The applicant also claimed that he could not perform his religious obligations such as going to the Imambargah, his life there was difficult and he lost weight.  Because the Tribunal finds that, with respect to his claims about suffering harm in Pakistan, the applicant is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal also disbelieves these claims.

101.   For all of the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in the village of X in Parachinar is remote and, therefore, he does not hold a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J(1) of the Act.  However, because the applicant lived a number of years in Karachi, the Tribunal has made an alternative finding that, even if the Tribunal was to consider there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm in Parachinar, s.5J requires that the real chance relates to all areas of Pakistan.[43]  Therefore, the Tribunal finds that a real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm in Parachinar is localised within the meaning of s.5J(1)(c) because, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Karachi is remote. 

[43] See DFE16 v MIBP [2017] FCCA 308 (Judge Smith, 10 March 2017) at [26] (undisturbed on appeal: DFE16 v MIBP [2018] FCAFC 177 (Reeves, Rangiah and Colvin JJ, 16 October 2018). The issue of applicants being able to live in other places in their country where there is not a real chance that they will suffer serious harm does not involve any consideration of the reasonableness of those applicants living in those other places.

102.   In reaching this finding, the Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the applicant has spent time in Australia, a western country, and applied for protection.  According to available country information, returnees to Pakistan who have lived in a Western country do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination on that ground.[44] The Tribunal advised the applicant of this country information and put to him that, based on that information, the Tribunal inferred that the risk of him suffering serious harm in Pakistan because he has been in Australia and applied for protection, is remote.

[44] See DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 5.44, 5.45.

103.   In response, the applicant said that he was not an ordinary Pakistani national. He said that as a Turi Shia who had been in a Western country, he would be ‘100% targeted’.  The Tribunal has assessed the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm based on his particular profile beyond being a Turi Shia and even considering, in addition, the fact that he has been in Australia and applied for protection, the Tribunal remains of the view that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Parachinar or Karachi is remote.

104.   By letter dated 5 December 2019, the representative made submissions on the applicant’s case.[45]  To support those submissions, the representative also provided a document containing country information relating to the various claims and assertions made in the submissions.[46] The representative also made submissions at the hearing.  Through these submissions and country information, the following assertions were made.  Pashtun Shia tribes from the Kurram Agency have historically been targeted by Sunni extremist groups such as the Taliban and such groups have said that they will target them.  This is because Turi Shias have historically opposed the Taliban and these other groups, refusing to allow the Taliban to have access to the areas where they live in Parachinar.  The Taliban and these other extremist groups consequently perceive Turi Shias as being pro-American.

[45] See folios 72-86 of the Tribunal file.

[46] See folios 45-71 of the Tribunal file.

105.   It was asserted that security in Pakistan was fluid and affected by certain global factors.  One such factor was the possible withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan which would give the Taliban more freedom to launch attacks in the Kurram Agency.  Another factor was the conflict in Syria in which Shias from Pakistan, including Turi Shias, have participated, some or all of them recruited by the government of Iran.  In that conflict, these Shias have fought against Sunni opposition such as Islamic State.  Accordingly, Turi Shias have been perceived by Sunni extremist groups in Pakistan as being pro-Iranian. Further, the Pakistan government has taken adverse interest in Shias suspected of fighting in Syria, with reports that a number of Shias have ‘disappeared’ on that basis.  However, the Tribunal notes that in the relevant report these people are said to have been those Shias returning from pilgrimage in the Middle East (and the applicant is not such a person).  More generally, the growing influence and competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Pakistan also risks the rise of sectarian violence and harm to Turi Shias themselves.

106.   With respect to these assertions, the Tribunal is willing to accept that Turi Shias could be perceived as pro-American and pro-Iranian.  The Tribunal is also willing to accept that the various global factors mentioned by the representative could adversely affect the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Pakistan.  However, it would be far too speculative for the Tribunal to conclude, based on any of these factors mentioned, including the perception of Turi Shias by state or non-state agents, that in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm.  To draw such a conclusion flies in the face of what has been the consistent and significant decline in attacks by terrorists, militant or extremist groups.

107.   It was asserted that while there may have been a decline in attacks by terrorist, militant and extremist groups, such violence in Pakistan was cyclical.  The representative presented a graph indicating attacks on Shias over a number of years, the representative submitting that it showed both spikes in attacks and periods of decline. The Tribunal is willing to accept that violence in Pakistan may well be cyclical and that the graph in question shows peaks and troughs as the representative claimed.  However, what is clear from that graph, is that, notwithstanding those periods of spikes and decline, attacks on Shias are in a consistent and significant decline.

108.   It was asserted that, notwithstanding the presence of the Pakistan military and security operations they have carried out, attacks took place in Parachinar in 2017 for which Sunni extremist groups were responsible and which were launched as punishment for Shias fighting in the conflict in Syria.  Reference was made to an attack in November 2018 in Orakzai in which 35 people were killed.  Reference was also made to eligibility guidelines concerned with the risk of harm for Shias in Pakistan released by UNHCR in 2017.

109.   With respect to that letter source, the Tribunal prefers the sources on which it relies in this decision because they were released in early 2019 and are, therefore, a more recent and accurate source of country information on which to assess the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm.  The other instances of attacks referred to by the representative only demonstrate that these militant groups still exist and launch attacks. What is more important though is that there has been a significant reduction in frequency of those attacks over time.

110.   It was asserted that the Pakistan government impedes media reporting of sensitive information and that included attacks on Shias and attacks on Turi Shias in Parachinar.  That meant underreporting of harm inflicted on low level people or those who suffer harm but are not killed.  The Tribunal is willing to allow for the possibility that not all attacks on Shias and Turi Shias may be publicly reported and that Pakistan authorities may obstruct such reporting.  However, the sources of country information relied on in this decision make clear that information on these issues is readily available.  The Tribunal is not willing to accept that underreporting of attacks of this nature occurs to a degree that the Tribunal’s sources of country information are unreliable.

111.   With respect to the applicant living away from the Kurram Agency in another part of Pakistan, it was asserted that terrorist, militant or Sunni extremist groups are becoming more sophisticated, operate all over Pakistan and across borders and align with each other and continue to launch attacks on Shias.  They are linked to the intelligence services of the Pakistan government which is ineffective in providing protection.  The representative disagreed with the statement by DFAT that Turis who live in other parts of Pakistan away from the Kurram Agency face the same risk of violence as non-Hazara Shias.  This was because Turi Shias, for the reasons given, have historically been targeted by Sunni extremist groups.

112.   The Tribunal accepts the submissions made by the representative about the reach of Sunni extremist groups across Pakistan, that Pakistan intelligence services may in some capacity collude with such groups and that those groups have historically targeted Turi Shias.  However, due to operations conducted by the Pakistan government, the activity of these groups has been significantly reduced with the consequence that the number of people harmed in attacks by these groups has also been significantly reduced.  The applicant lived in Karachi for a number of years and there is no credible evidence that he suffered harm there.

113.   Further, the representative said that there was no global network of expatriate Turis who send funds to other Turis who choose to live elsewhere in Pakistan away from the Kurram Agency.  The representative objected to DFAT not specifying the number of Turis who choose to live in another part of Pakistan and not specifying where enclaves of such Turis are located or their economic viability.  It was submitted that the applicant would not choose to live away from his family because such tribal connections were vital to subsist.  Without those connections the applicant would undergo severe hardship living in another city in Pakistan.  The Tribunal acknowledges these submissions, but, the applicant lived in Karachi for a number of years without his family and was able to subsist.  Having completed a university degree, the applicant should be in a good position to obtain employment and accommodation in Karachi.

114.   It was submitted that Pashtuns from the tribal areas who go and live in other parts of Pakistan are suspected of having affiliations with the Taliban and so they receive harassment and harm from both state and non-state actors and suffer discrimination in relation to employment.  The Tribunal rejects these submissions because country information indicates that Pashtuns are active in employment in the private and public sectors.  Indeed, the applicant said both of his brothers had employment in other cities in Pakistan away from their native area.  Further, the applicant lived in Karachi for a number of years and there is no credible evidence that he suffered harm in that period from either state or non-state actors. 

115.   The representative referred to a decision of the Tribunal (differently constituted) where the Tribunal decided, in essence, that due to the continued presence of militants, growing intolerance and extremism and notwithstanding the decline in sectarian violence in Pakistan, there was a real chance that a Turi Shia would suffer serious harm anywhere in Pakistan.  The Tribunal based that finding on long-standing hostility between Turis and the Taliban and associated extremist groups and the fact that Turi Shias from Pakistan were easily and readily identifiable as such.  The representative submitted that being so easily identifiable made relocation to another area of Pakistan not practicable and not reasonable. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would be readily identifiable in Pakistan as a Turi Shia from Parachinar, but, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the risk of him suffering serious harm on those grounds is remote.  The Tribunal is not bound by the decisions or assessments of other differently constituted Tribunals.

116.   The representative also provided a number of statements or letters from different individuals in Parachinar.[47]  Some of these people described themselves as ‘political leader’, ‘social activist’, ‘PhD candidate’ and ‘retired [occupation]’.  Other authors of these documents were various Turi Shia groups from Parachinar.  In these letters, it was asserted that Turi Shias in Parachinar have been attacked by the Taliban in the past and such extremist groups collude with the Pakistan security forces.  Militants have a presence in the area including Islamic state which is responsible for recently making threats to political and social workers in Parachinar.  Some militants have been apprehended in the area and handed over to the authorities.  Media reporting of militant attacks and activity in the area is restricted by the Pakistan government.

[47] See folios 31-42 of the Tribunal file and a letter dated 5 December 2019 from the representative confirming their contents at the folios 94-95 of the Tribunal file.

117.   These claims about restrictions on media reporting have been dealt with above. Similarly, the Tribunal acknowledges that Turi Shias have been attacked by the Taliban in the past and is aware of the possibility of collusion with Pakistan intelligence services.  The Tribunal is also willing to accept the assertions made in these documents that militants are still in the area and that they may make threats to people there.  However, the Tribunal cannot overlook the significant reduction in attacks and the numbers of people harmed in such attacks over the past years.  That reduction is due to the activity of the Pakistan government and the Tribunal is not persuaded by these claims.

118.   In these documents, it was also asserted that life in Parachinar was very difficult because of a lack of basic services, including an under resourced hospital.  This was caused by the security risk of travel in and out of the city to other locations like Peshawar, the steps taken by the military to try and secure access roads contributing to this.  Again, the Tribunal has dealt with these claims above in this decision and finds that these claims do not equate with a real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm.

119.   In these documents, it was asserted that Turis who go and live in other parts of Pakistan are at risk of kidnapping and targeted killing.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Karachi. Another assertion in these documents was that there is no such tribal network that provides financial assistance to those Turis who do attempt to live away from the Kurram Agency. As discussed above, the Tribunal finds that this applicant will be well placed to obtain employment and accommodation in Karachi and he was able to subsist when he lived there before.

120.   In some of these documents, assertions are made about the murder of individual Shias in Peshawar and other cities in Pakistan along with suicide bomb attacks in different locations.  In addition, the representative also provided the documents that comprised media reports or statements made by individuals online also referring to the murder of individual Shias.[48]  The Tribunal has treated this information with caution because in a number of cases the dates of these incidents are not provided.  Also not provided is further information as to the background of these incidents to enable the Tribunal to know the motive for the harm inflicted. The Tribunal is willing to accept that attacks from militant or extremist groups may continue, but, as discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied this is occurring at a rate that demonstrates a real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm. 

[48] See folios 33, 34, 103-108 of the Tribunal file.

121.   By letter dated 12 April 2016, the applicant’s former representative made submissions on his case.[49]  In the submissions, the representative provides background to the Turi Shias in Parachinar and their conflict with the Taliban. In the submissions, the representative provides country information about attacks on Shias, including Turi Shias and also Shia professionals such as doctors.  This information was presented in a manner that did not disclose sufficient information for the Tribunal to be able to determine that the reason for these attacks was religion.  In addition, much of the country information contained in the submissions related to events that occurred in 2014 or earlier, which the Tribunal considers to be out of date and inferior to the sources of country information on which the Tribunal relies in this decision.

[49] See folios 64-227 of the Department file.

122.   In the submissions, the former representative makes very similar claims to those made by the applicant’s current representative about global factors that affect the risk to Shias in Pakistan, in particular, the contest between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the conflict in Syria. The former representative made submissions about collusion between Sunni extremists and the Pakistan intelligence service.  All of these claims have been dealt with by the Tribunal above.  The former representative refers to the risk for ‘perceived Westerners’, but, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm because he has been in Australia is remote.  The former representative refers to a high degree of crime in Karachi, but, country information set out earlier in this decision indicates a significant reduction in that respect.

123.   By letter dated 4 October 2016, the former representative made further submissions on the applicant’s case.[50] In these submissions, the former representative again provided reports about attacks on Shias as well as other forms of harm being inflicted on them, referred to as registering cases and a hate campaign.  Claims were made about the continued existence of militants and extremists notwithstanding the military operations carried out to eliminate them. Again, the Tribunal finds that this information dates back to, at the least, October 2016 and the Tribunal prefers the sources on which it relies on this decision, being more recent.  Further, again, the representative does not provide sufficient information for the Tribunal to know that the attacks in question were sectarian and not for some other reason.

[50] See folios 228-235 of the Department file.

124.   In submissions, the current representative also made comments about the applicant’s particular profile.  In this respect, it was submitted that the applicant was opposed to the Taliban and other Sunni militants.  The representative referred to attacks on political leaders and workers from the Awami National Party and claimed that Turi Shias such as the applicant should be considered as being at the same risk of suffering serious harm.  In this respect, it was submitted that the applicant supports and advocates for the Shia community.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant, as a Turi Shia from Parachinar, would be opposed to the Taliban and Sunni extremists.  The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant undertook activities for the Shia community through his work for the ISO, the IO and also driving his uncle to meetings.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant may well undertake these activities on return to Pakistan.  However, the Tribunal does not accept that this equates with membership of and activity for a political party that would put him at an elevated risk of harm in both Parachinar and Karachi.  This is somewhat demonstrated by the fact that the Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant suffered harm in Pakistan on these grounds.

125.   In all submissions made on the applicant’s case, it was claimed that he belonged to various particular social groups made up of Turi Shias from Parachinar; Turi families that have a member who is a well-known Turi tribal leader; young men of the Turi tribe; families who have been actively anti-Taliban; Turi men educated in the west and educated Turi Shia men. The Tribunal has assessed the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm based on his relationship with his uncle, his ethnicity, his religion, his place of origin, the opposition of his tribe to the Taliban, his level of education and also the fact that he has been in Australia.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm on any of these grounds, considered separately or cumulatively, is remote.

126.   The current representative submitted that the applicant’s mental health would deteriorate if he returned to Pakistan and that would ruin his ability to subsist.  This would particularly be the case without the support of family. For this the representative produced extracts from various sources of country information to the effect that mental health care facilities in Pakistan are limited.  As discussed above, the Tribunal was provided with a report from a psychologist assessing the applicant’s mental state and providing a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

127.   The Tribunal has stated above that this diagnosis is based on claims that the applicant has self-reported to the psychologist, the credibility of which the psychologist is not in a position to assess.  For the reasons given above, Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to why the applicant came to Australia and why he does not want to return to Pakistan.  In view of the Tribunal’s findings on credibility, it has no credible evidence as to the cause of the applicant’s mental state as diagnosed by the psychologist. 

128.   What is clear from the psychologist’s report is that the applicant is anxious about his uncertain immigration status.  Given the Tribunal has no credible evidence as to why the applicant does not want to return to Pakistan, it is highly likely that with his immigration status resolved, the applicant’s mental state itself will resolve on return to Pakistan.  The Tribunal does not accept that on return to Pakistan, the applicant’s mental state will prevent him from resuming his life there, seeking employment and, in the case of living in Karachi, seeking accommodation there.

129.   For all of the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Pakistan. He does not hold a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J(1) of the Act.  With respect to the complementary protection criterion, pursuant to s.36(2B) of the Act, the Tribunal must find that there is not a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in Pakistan if it would be reasonable for him to relocate to an area of Pakistan where there would not be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. 

130.   For the same reasons that the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Parachinar, the Tribunal also finds that there is not a real risk that he will suffer significant harm in that city.  Even if the Tribunal was to find that there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm in Parachinar, the Tribunal finds that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Karachi. For the same reasons that the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Karachi, the Tribunal also finds that there is not a real risk that he will suffer significant harm in that city.

131.   In addition, the Tribunal considers that it is reasonable for the applicant to live in Karachi.   He lived there for a number of years before leaving Pakistan. With his university degree, the applicant should be well placed to seek employment and accommodation in Karachi.  The Tribunal has mentioned above violence taking place in Karachi between workers and members of political parties.  He is not involved in any such political party.  Similarly while criminal activity has taken place in Karachi, country information mentioned above indicates that this has been significantly reduced.  Accordingly, neither of these factors make the applicant relocating to Karachi as being not reasonable. As the Tribunal has just stated, the applicant lived in Karachi for a number of years and undertook and completed a university degree. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to the receiving country, Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

132.   For the reasons given above, the Tribunal concludes that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

133.   For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

134.   Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

135.   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).

DECISION

136.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

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.’

‘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%.

‘The South Asia Terrorism Portal reports 16 incidents of sectarian violence killed 231 people and injured 691 in 2017, compared with 131 incidents killing 558 and injuring 987 in 2013 (2018 data not yet available). This trend continued in 2018, with a 40 per cent reduction in sectarian violence (12 incidents) compared to 2017.’

At 3.106 DFAT states:

‘According to the SATP, three incidents of sectarian violence in Punjab in 2017 killed three
people and injured one, and no incidents of sectarian violence occurred between 1 January
and 6 May 2018. The largest sectarian attack in Punjab in 2016 targeted Christians (see
Christians).’

See also United Kingdom Home Office Country Policy and Information Note Pakistan: Shia Muslims
Version 2.0 January 2019. At 2.4.8, the Home Office states that overall sectarian violence against

Shias has declined since 2013.

Kingdom Home Office Country Policy and Information Note Pakistan: Shia Muslims Version 2.0
January 2019. At 2.4.1, the Home Office states that the Shia population is estimated to be between
20 and 50 million. At 2.4.3, the Home Office states that, in general, a Shia Muslim is not likely to face
a real risk of persecution and / or serious harm from state actors. At 2.4.7, the Home Office states
that, in terms of violence from non-state actors, the majority of targeted attacks usually take the form
of bomb attacks at Shia dominated events and venues in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and
Quetta, Balochistan. At 2.4.9, the Home Office made the following comments about the risk of harm
to Shias from non-state actors:

‘In general, a Shia Muslim is not likely to face a real risk of persecution and/or serious harm
from non-state actors, though the risk may vary depending on location. Although there
continued to be targeted attacks in Shia dominated areas, these are infrequent and do not
generally amount to substantial grounds for considering there is a real risk of persecution

and/or serious harm.’