1707038 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a Pakistani national who identified as a Shia Muslim and a human rights activist. The applicant claimed to fear persecution from extremist Sunni groups, such as Lashkar e-Jhangvi, due to his religious beliefs and activism. He alleged that he and his family had been attacked on two occasions in 2015 after leaving a Shia mosque and that his reports to the police had yielded no results. The applicant contended that the Pakistani authorities were unable to provide adequate protection. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision not to grant the protection visa.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection where there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The court also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be considered to face such a risk, as outlined in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act.

The court affirmed the AAT's decision, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(a). While acknowledging the applicant's claims of fear and past incidents, the Tribunal did not find that these claims established a well-founded fear of persecution for the reasons outlined in the Act. The court also noted that there was no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) by being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa. Consequently, the applicant was found not to meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.