1711764 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, a protection visa. The applicant had a complex immigration history in Australia, having been in unlawful status for significant periods between 2000 and 2016 before lodging his protection visa application in November 2016. The applicant claimed to be a follower of Riaz Goh Shahi and the Messiah Foundation International (MFI), stating that his beliefs were not compatible with the state religion of Pakistan and that he feared persecution if returned.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, as defined by the Migration Act 1958, such that Australia had protection obligations towards him. This required determining if the applicant's fear of harm from Pakistani authorities or society due to his religious beliefs was real and significant, and whether effective protection measures were available to him in Pakistan. The court also considered the applicant's credibility, his knowledge and practice of his claimed religion, and the implications of his prolonged periods of unlawful status and delay in seeking protection.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's stated religious beliefs and the potential for discrimination against MFI followers in Pakistan, the court found significant credibility concerns. These concerns stemmed from the applicant's inconsistent claims regarding his religious practice and knowledge, his lengthy periods of unlawful status without seeking protection, and the lack of evidence of any actual harm or threats experienced in Pakistan. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could not relocate within Pakistan or that he would be unable to obtain protection from the authorities, which are factors that can negate a well-founded fear of persecution.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.