1708572 (Refugee) - [2018] AATA 4172

1708572 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4172 (10 September 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1708572
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan
MEMBERS:Christopher Smolicz (Presiding)

Peter Britten-Jones
DATE:10 September 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Statement made on 10 September 2018 at 10:34am
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – protection visa –Pakistan – Federal Circuit Court remittal – Irregular Maritime Arrival – race – Pashtun ethnicity and Turi tribal affiliation – religion – Shia Muslim – imputed anti-Taliban political opinion – being opposed to the Taliban by virtue of his Turi tribal affiliation – membership of a particular social group – failed asylum seeker from a western country – relocation not reasonable– effective state protection not available – decision under review remitted for reconsideration

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 425, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
AAY15 v MIBP [2017] FCCA 476
MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa on 19 December 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 6 January 2014.
The applicant subsequently applied to the then Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) for review of the delegate’s decision. On 28 January 2015 the RRT affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa (the first Tribunal decision).[1]
[1] RRT Decision Record 1400827.
The applicant applied to the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) for judicial review of the RRT’s decision. The FCC found that the RRT failed to deal with claims expressly made by the applicant and the matter has been remitted back for reconsideration.[2]
Issue
[2] AAY15 v MIBP [2017] FCCA 476.
The issue raised by the applicant in this matter is whether he meets the refugee criterion or come within Australia’s complementary protection obligations because of his:
·     Shia Muslim religion
·     Pashtun ethnicity and Turi tribal affiliation (race)
·     imputed political opinion, namely being opposed to the Taliban by virtue of his Turi tribal affiliation.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the visa applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s.425(2)(a) of the Act.
A summary of the relevant law is set out at Attachment A.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Summary of substantive claims
The Tribunal sets out the claims and evidence advanced by the applicant to engage Australia’s protection obligations. The Tribunal takes these claims and evidence from the applicant’s statement of claim, his protection interview and the hearing conducted by the first Tribunal.
The applicant is [age] years old. He is a national of Pakistan. He arrived in Australia without authority, by boat, in August 2012.
The applicant comes from a village in Parachinar, Kurram Agency, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, an area that borders Afghanistan. He is of Pashtun ethnicity, a member of the Turi tribe, and a Shia Muslim (otherwise known as Shi’ite). He declared that he speaks Pashtu and Urdu and a little English. He completed studies [and] undertook training [working] in [a certain industry] in Karachi.
The applicant declared that he had intended to undertake further studies in Karachi but there had been a bomb explosion on the 10^th day of Muharram (Ashura) in the Muslim calendar in Karachi which killed 90 people and injured 165 people.[3] He said that as a consequence his father had asked that he return to his village. At the Departmental interview the applicant’s representative submitted that he had ‘just escaped with his own life’ after attending the Ashura procession in Karachi in 2010. In the decision under review, the primary decision-maker referred to the fact that the bomb explosion at the Ashura procession in Karachi had in fact been in December 2009, some 11 months before the applicant claimed to have left Karachi, and he therefore expressed doubt as to whether the applicant had returned to Parachinar for this reason, owing to the time lapse, if at all.
[3] There was a bomb explosion at Ashura, the 10th day of Muharram, in Karachi in December 2009: see ‘Pakistan tense after Ashura attack’, Reuters, 29 December 2009, CX238197. Ashura in 2010 in Karachi passed peacefully: see ‘Ashura procession ends peacefully’, The News International (Pakistan), 17 December 2010, downloaded from <>
In his statement made on 5 November 2014 the applicant confirmed that the bomb explosion in Karachi on Ashura to which he had referred in the statutory declaration accompanying his original application had in fact been the bombing at the Ashura procession in December 2009. He said that when this incident had happened he was quite scared and his father had asked him to come back to Parachinar, but he confirmed that he did not in fact return until November 2010. He added that when this bomb blast had occurred he was at a medical camp because he needed to be treated for wounds he had inflicted on himself during matam (Arabic for mourning) using knives. He said that if he had been in the jaloos (procession) on Jinnah Road at the time of the blast he would have been killed. He said that two of the people with whom he had been doing matam were killed in this bomb blast.
The applicant fears that if he is forced to return he would be kidnapped, tortured or possibly killed. He claims he will be targeted in Pakistan because he is a Shia Muslim and a member of the Turi tribe. He fears harm at the hands of the Taliban who remain active in his area and continue to target Turi Shias.
The applicant’s representatives submitted that the applicant would be targeted throughout Pakistan on the basis of his profile. They also referred to evidence that Pashtuns were subject to racist stereotyping and they submitted on the basis of this evidence that Pashtuns were severely discriminated against outside the FATA. They also submitted that it would not be reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Pakistan. It was submitted that he would be unable to practise his religion freely and without extreme fear in areas outside Parachinar. Given the climate of religious and political persecution in Pakistan, the growing sectarian violence against Shias and the established profile of Turi Shias as anti-Taliban/Sunni, relocation would not be reasonable.
Although the Minister’s delegate and the RRT made some adverse findings in relation to some aspects of the applicant’s claims, the delegate and the RRT found that the applicant was a Turi Shia Muslim from Kurram Agency, and it was not in dispute that he would face a real chance of serious harm if he were to return to his home area. However, the delegate and the RRT found that he could safely and reasonably relocate in Pakistan to such locations as Islamabad or Rawalpindi.
Findings
The Tribunal finds the applicant to be a citizen of Pakistan and that he presently has no existing right to enter and reside in any other country. The Tribunal finds that Pakistan is the country of reference for the purpose of the Refugee Convention.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant could return to his home area of Parachinar, Kurram Agency in the province of the FATA, Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a Shia Muslim of Pashtun ethnicity and a member of the Turi tribe.
The Tribunal notes that the Turi tribe is an exclusively Shia Pashtun tribe of around 500,000 people. While there are small communities of Turis in major cities in other parts of Pakistan, including Islamabad, Turis mostly live in and around the town of Parachinar in Kurram Agency. Unlike Hazaras, Turis are not easily visually distinguishable, but they can be identifiable because of distinctive names and accents, and because they largely live within a small, well-defined area.[4]
[4] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 1 September 2017 [3.18].
The Tribunal accepts that since arriving in Australia the applicant has been involved in religious observances like the Ashura procession, the Eid days and anniversaries of the Imams. He has participated in a procession at Youm-e-Quds in Parachinar.[5] The Tribunal has had regard to correspondence issued by [an Australian Islamic organisation] and accepts that the applicant is a religious person who has a strong belief in Islam and has been regularly attending an Islamic [organisation] in [Australia].
[5] Youm-e-Quds or ‘Jerusalem Day’ is an Iranian-inspired event held on the last Friday of Ramadan to express solidarity with the Palestinian cause: see Sidrah Roghay, ‘Pakistan: Anxiety among Shia community members rising’, The News (Pakistan), 19 August 2012 <CX294874>.
In assessing the applicant’s claims the Tribunal has had regard to the most recent UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan.
The UNHCR finds that asylum claims made by Pakistani nationals who are members of religious minorities require particularly careful examination of possible risks. Specifically, the UNHCR finds that ‘members of the Shi’ite [Shia] community may, depending on the individual circumstances of the case, be in need of international refugee protection on account of their religion, ethnicity, (imputed) political opinion, and/or other relevant grounds’.[6]
[6] UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, 1 January 2017, 59 <CISEDB50AD3775>.
The UNHCR reports that Shi’ites are the main targets of sectarian attacks in Pakistan. The UNHCR reports that the number of blasphemy allegations made against Shi’ites has ‘increased exponentially’ in the period from 2012 to 2015. Extremist Sunni militant groups reportedly view the Shi’ites as ‘heretics’, ‘infidels’ and ‘apostates’ who should be punished with death. Shi’ites are subject to violent sectarian attacks by such militant groups, which are reportedly able to act with impunity.[7]
[7] Ibid 54-55.
The UNHCR find that attacks are primarily targeting ordinary Shi’ite individuals in all parts of the country.[8]
[8] Ibid pp 57-58.
The Tribunal has had regard to information in the DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan (15 January 2016) and notes the following paragraphs in particular:
4.2 Sectarian attacks have historically targeted individuals, places of worship, shrines and religious schools. Although this violence has affected all religious and sectarian groups, Shias represent a higher proportion of those attacked and killed. According to CRSS, for example, 58 per cent of fatalities from sectarian violence (122 of 212 deaths) from January-June 2015 were Shia. The majority of these casualties were from large-scale attacks rather than target killings. Generalised violence includes violence associated with government security operations; serious criminal acts; and inter-ethnic, tribal and politically-motivated violence.
4.3 DFAT assesses there is a low risk of sectarian violence for most Shias in Pakistan and a moderate threat of sectarian violence for prominent Shias such as high-profile professionals. Although Shias are more prominent during Ashura processions, heightened state protection measures during these celebrations mitigate the threats associated with this greater exposure
4.4 Shias continue to face a threat from anti-Shia and militant groups, particularly Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) or Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jammat (ASWJ). Most of these networks have broad agendas, which include strong anti-Shia sentiments. Various Pakistani Taliban groups operating under the banner of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have also claimed responsibility for attacks on Shias.
The Tribunal has also had regard to the following country information and finds that historically, the persecution faced by Turi Shias has encompassed strategic, tribal and sectarian dimensions. The Tribunal finds the country information is consistent with the applicant’s claims.
In 2007 the Taliban fighters in North and South Waziristan agreed to a peace deal with the government of Pakistan which involved them not crossing into Afghanistan via those two provinces.[9] In an effort to circumvent the treaty, Taliban fighters attempted to enter Afghanistan through Kurram Agency. Turi Shia tribesmen formed militias to prevent the Taliban safe passage, which resulted in hundreds of Taliban fighters entering Kurram Agency to both ‘dislocate the Shia’ and gain access into Afghanistan; the ensuing fighting was, reportedly, ‘extremely brutal’.[10] A May 2011 joint report by the Institute for the Study of War and Critical Threats describes how the conflict in Kurram seriously affected the livelihoods of those living in Kurram, and Shia populations in Parachinar in particular.[11]
[9] Fishman, B 2013, ‘The Taliban in Pakistan: An Overview’, Talibanistan: Negotiating the Borders between Terror, Politics, and Religion, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 361-364.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Dressler, J & Jan, R 2011, The Haqqani Network in Kurram: The Regional Implications of a Growing Insurgency, Institute for the Study of War & Critical Threats, May, p 5 < <CIS 22731>.
Reports indicate that Shia groups blame the government for either not doing enough to defeat the militant groups or actively supporting them.[12]
[12] Dressler, J 2011, ‘Haqqani Network Influence in Kurram and its Implications for Afghanistan’, CTC Sentinel, Vol. 4, Issue 3, Combating Terrorism Centre, US Military Academy, p 12 < <CIS 23410>.
The Tribunal has had regard to recent country information and finds that the security situation has significantly deteriorated in Kurram Agency since delegate and the RRT decisions were made in this matter. The Tribunal notes that the death toll from terrorist attacks in Kurram Agency, where Turis predominantly live, spiked in 2017. The number of deaths in Kurram Agency jumped 607 per cent between 2016 and 2017, from 27 people killed to 191.[13]
[13] Center for Research and Security Studies, Annual Security Report 2017, 1 March 2018, p 11 <CIS7B83941392>.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claim that he witnessed terrorist attacks in his home, area and when he was living in Karachi, is consistent with the country information.
DFAT report that militant groups such as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have carried out attacks directed at Turis because of their Shia faith over a significant period. For example, in the first six months of 2017 three large-scale attacks targeting Turis in Parachinar occurred. 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 a Shia place of worship (imambargah) in Parachinar; and on 24 June 2017 two devices detonated in a market in Parachinar. DFAT advise that such attacks ostensibly targeted Turi Shia because of their religious affiliation, and have killed more than 120 people.[14]
[14] DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 1 September 2017 [3.21].
DFAT assesses that Turis in Parachinar face a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups, because of their Shia faith.[15]
[15] Ibid [3.24].
The Tribunal has had regard to the country information and finds that violence against Shias in FATA has strategic, tribal and sectarian dimensions. The Tribunal finds that Shias in FATA, particularly in Kurram Agency (Parachinar), face a real chance of persecution due to their Shia religious beliefs. The Tribunal finds that Turi Shias, by virtue of their geographic concentration in upper Kurram, are more easily targeted in sectarian violence than other Shias in the region. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s evidence needs to be seen in the recent historical context of the Taliban’s conflict with the Turi tribe in Kurram Agency. The Tribunal finds that the objective of the Taliban is to persecute the Turi people not only due to their Shia Muslim faith but also in order to seek retribution for recent military conflicts.
The Tribunal finds that if the applicant were to return to his home area in the reasonably foreseeable future there is a real chance he would be subjected to serious harm amounting to persecution on account of his Pashtun Turi ethnicity (race), his Shia Muslim religion and his imputed anti-Taliban political opinion. The Tribunal therefore finds the applicant’s fear of persecution is well-founded.
The persecution feared by the applicant emanates from non-state insurgency groups opposed to the Pakistan government (notably, the Taliban/TTP). Country information confirms that state protection from the Pakistan government in the applicant’s home area remains weak, unpredictable and vulnerable to significant corruption.
According to the UNHCR Guidelines,[16] law enforcement authorities are reportedly unable or unwilling to protect members of religious minorities, including Shias. Sunni militant groups, such as the banned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, reportedly operated with impunity, including in areas where state authority is well established, such as Punjab province and Karachi.
[16] UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, 01 January 2017, p.55-56 <CISEDB50AD3775>.
The US Department of State reports that the Pakistan police often failed to protect members of religious minorities, including Shias, although there have been improvements.[17] The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) also assesses that despite government efforts and positive rulings by the Supreme Court, the government failed to provide adequate protection to targeted groups or to prosecute perpetrators or those calling for violence.[18] The Tribunal concludes the applicant will not be able to access effective protection, and a real chance of serious harm remains should the applicant return to his home province.
[17] US Department of State, Pakistan – Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015, 13 April 2016, section 1(d).
[18] USCIRF, Annual Report 2015- Pakistan, 30 April 2015, p.2.
In view of the unstable security situation in the applicant’s home area, the Tribunal finds the state cannot meet the level of protection which citizens are entitled to expect, as discussed in MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1. The Tribunal finds, based on the country information, that the applicant would not be able to avail himself of effective state protection against such harm.
Relocation
The focus of the Convention definition is not upon the protection that the country of nationality might be able to provide in some particular region, but upon a more general notion of protection by that country: Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 per Black CJ at 440-1. Depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, it may be reasonable for a person to relocate in the country of nationality or former habitual residence to a region where, objectively, there is no appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution. Thus, a person will be excluded from refugee status if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, to expect him or her to seek refuge in another part of the same country. What is ‘reasonable’ in this sense must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country.

The Tribunal has considered the reasonableness of relocation to a large city in Pakistan such as Islamabad or Rawalpindi.
Submissions by the applicant’s representative referred to country information which suggested that some members of the Turi tribe had been kidnapped for ransom from Islamabad and Rawalpindi.^[19] One of the sources suggested that Turis were targeted due to a perception that they were wealthy and have the capacity to pay the ransom, as the local militants know about the financial positions of the Turi tribe and target those who can pay the ransom. The source went on to say that poor people who were kidnapped for ransom were killed as they could not pay the ransom.
[19] ‘Pakistan: Kurram residents face insecurity in Islamabad’, Dawn, 16 December 2011, CX279861.
The RRT did not accept that it would be unreasonable for the applicant to relocate in the circumstances. In doing so, the RRT accepted that some members of the Turi tribe have been kidnapped for ransom from Islamabad/Rawalpindi and that the kidnappings were carried out by people who knew those who are wealthy and could afford to pay the ransom money. However, given the applicant’s evidence that his family was very poor, the RRT did not accept that the applicant would be targeted for kidnapping for ransom if he were to relocate to Islamabad.
The FCC in this matter found that the RRT failed to appreciate the distinction between the claimed perception by the Taliban and the actual knowledge of the Taliban.
The applicant contended that Turis were perceived to be wealthy, that he would be targeted for kidnapping and ransom because of this perception by the Taliban and extremists, and that he would be killed when he could not pay the ransom.
In assessing the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal had regard to the judgment of the FCC in this matter and accepts that the totality of the claim made by the applicant is one of ‘perception’ by the Taliban of Turis as a group, not that they actually knew of the individuals amongst the Turis who were wealthy.
The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has now been residing in Australia for about six years and would be returning as a failed asylum seeker from a western country. DFAT assesses that individuals in Pakistan are not subject to additional risk of discrimination or violence on the basis of having spent time in western countries or because of perceived western associations (such as clothing), despite a generally increasing conservatism and sectarianism across the country.[20]
[20] DFAT, Country Information Report Pakistan, 1 September 2017 [3.140].
The Tribunal finds DFAT’s assessment to be of limited assistance and agrees with the agent’s submissions that DFAT do not specify what ethnicities, what branches of Islam these Pakistanis are from and whether they are asylum seekers. The Tribunal finds that if the applicant is forced to relocate to a larger city in Pakistan, he will face difficulties with reintegration and may well be perceived as a wealthy Turi returnee from a western country which would further increase the risk of kidnapping.
It was also submitted that the threats to the applicant are exacerbated by the fact that he can be easily identified as a Shia Muslim by Sunni extremists in other regions of Pakistan.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a religious person who has played an active role in his mosque and helped organise Ashura processions while living in Australia. It follows that he would continue this observance if he were to return to Pakistan. Given the status of Shias as a Pakistani religious minority outside Kurram Agency and Quetta, the Tribunal accepts that he will become exposed and identified as a Shia when attending religious sites, shrines or observing Shia specific holidays such as Muharram. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s religious practice and identity pose a real risk to him being able to relocate.
DFAT report that Sunni and Shia mosques in Pakistan are clearly distinguishable: these mosques usually have visibly different exteriors and are identifiable by name. Shia mosques also feature different Muslim iconography, including the Shia sword, horses, images of Ali and Hussain, and ‘U-shaped’ crescent moons. Shia and Sunni mosques also have different prayer times, and worshippers use different hand positions while praying. Shias are most prominent during Shia religious festivals and pilgrimages to Iran. Shias participating in Ashura processions during Muharram often administer forms of self-harm such as flagellation, which can leave permanent marks.[21]
[21] Ibid [3.36].
The Tribunal further finds that this risk is further exacerbated because the applicant belongs to the Turi Tribe. Some sources have also told DFAT Turi accents are easy to distinguish from other Pashtun groups.[22] DFAT observe that Shias are often identifiable by common Shia names. Similarly, ethnic and tribal names can reveal a person’s tribal or sectarian affiliation such as Bangash or Turi, as can their address if they are from a predominantly Shia area.[23] The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant’s home address would become known when he would be required to present his Computerised National Identity Card at military check points in order to freely travel in Pakistan.
[22] Ibid [3.18].
[23] Ibid [3.35].
As stated above, the UNHCR find that terrorist attacks targeting Shia individuals occur in all parts of the country.[24] The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s religious observance and worship, name and accent increase the risk of the applicant being identified and singled out as a Shia, Turi outsider from Parachinar, FATA.
[24] Ibid pp 57-58.
Taking into account the applicant’s profile and the country information on the level of sectarian violence throughout much of Pakistan, the Tribunal is not satisfied he would be free from a well-founded fear of persecution in the other provinces of Pakistan.
In conclusion, having regard to the applicant’s personal profile as a Turi Shia Muslim and the growing presence of extremist groups throughout Pakistan, the Tribunal finds that it is not reasonable for the applicant to relocate to any other part of Pakistan to avoid his risk of Convention based persecution.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Christopher Smolicz
Member

Peter Britten-Jones
Deputy President

Attachment A
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, the applicant 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.
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.