1712158 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a Protection visa by a Pakistani national who claimed to fear persecution from Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) party activists. The applicant alleged that his fear stemmed from his refusal to pay extortion money to MQM activists as a shopkeeper, his subsequent refusal to withdraw police complaints against them, and his ethnicity as an ethnic Sindhi. The matter was heard by C. Packer, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, membership of a particular social group (Sindhi shopkeepers), or race (Sindhi ethnicity), such that Australia had protection obligations towards him under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal was also required to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Pakistan, the applicant would suffer significant harm, thereby engaging complementary protection obligations.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused heavily on the applicant's credibility. It found that the applicant had fabricated significant parts of his narrative, particularly concerning his claimed ownership and operation of a shop, his interactions with MQM activists, and the subsequent police complaints. The Tribunal disbelieved his account of being extorted, having his shop torched, being assaulted and abducted, and lodging police reports, citing inconsistencies in his evidence and the unreliability of documents such as First Information Reports (FIRs) from Pakistan, which are known to be susceptible to fraud. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that country information did not support a general risk of harm to Sindhis in Karachi or that the applicant would face persecution due to his ethnicity or any imputed political opinion. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's ability to relocate within Pakistan, specifically to Sukkur, where he had previously stayed with relatives and was not approached by MQM activists.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa. It concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the claimed reasons, nor had he demonstrated a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.