1712801 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a husband, wife, and their son, all of Pakistani nationality. The applicants, who are from different religious and ethnic backgrounds, married in Pakistan against the wishes of their families. They claimed that upon return to Pakistan, they would face a real risk of significant harm due to their interfaith marriage, which defied familial obligations and societal norms, particularly in the Punjab province, where honour killings are prevalent. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, and alternatively, whether they met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims regarding their fear of persecution, the nature of the harm they might suffer, and the availability and effectiveness of state protection in Pakistan. The court also considered the concept of a "particular social group" in the context of interfaith marriages and the potential for internal relocation within Pakistan.

The court considered the applicants' claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information. The applicants, a Sunni Punjabi woman and a Shia Saraiki man, married in defiance of their families' expectations and societal norms in Pakistan. The court noted that while the applicants might not meet the refugee criterion, they could still qualify for a visa if there was a substantial ground for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm, as defined by sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act. The court also acknowledged the prevalence of honour killings in Pakistan and the potential for condonation of such crimes by authorities, which would impact the availability of state protection.

The decision under review was remitted for reconsideration.