1713586 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa claim of a Pakistani national who alleged he feared persecution from his own family and his wife's family due to their inter-caste marriage. The applicant contended that Pakistani authorities would not protect him due to corruption and the influence of his wife's family, who allegedly worked for Intelligence and could locate him. He further claimed his wife had been in hiding since 2012, discovered multiple times, and subjected to violence, including being doused with acid.

The Tribunal was required to determine the applicant's credibility and whether he held a genuinely held, well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan. This involved assessing the consistency of his evidence, particularly concerning the alleged attacks and threats, his wife's place of residence, and the circumstances surrounding his departure from Pakistan. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's mental health and its potential impact on his ability to give evidence, as well as the delay in his application for protection and his previous student visa applications supported by his family.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied established principles regarding the assessment of asylum claims, noting that a mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness. While acknowledging the difficulties faced by asylum seekers and the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt to generally credible applicants unable to substantiate all claims, the Tribunal emphasised it was not required to accept allegations uncritically. The Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, including the unexplained misplacement of a crucial document, a warning summons against his wife's family. It concluded that the applicant's primary reason for leaving Pakistan was to pursue studies for career advancement, not fear of harm. The Tribunal also rejected claims of attacks and threats from either family, finding instead that the applicant's family had supported his studies.

Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant as a credible witness and found he did not have a genuinely held, well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan. The Tribunal concluded there was no real chance of serious harm to the applicant from any family member, either now or in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal also dismissed a new claim regarding the risks faced by failed asylum seekers returning to Pakistan as vague. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.