1713664 (Migration)

[2018] AATA 4308

1713664 (Migration) [2018] AATA 4308 (31 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1713664

MEMBER:Christine Cody

DATE:31 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

Statement made on 31 August 2018 at 9:26am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – genuine temporary entrant – purpose to visit family – management of family business – trade licence – company bank statements – deferment of course – resides with other family –sole responsibility for care of parents – review applicant’s protection status – inconsistent evidence – decision under review affirmed


LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cl 600.211

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 2 June 2017 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2.    The visa applicant, [age] year old male citizen of Afghanistan, applied for the visa on 24 April 2017. At the time the visa application was lodged, Class FA contained one subclass, Subclass 600 (Visitor), with a number of different streams. In this case the applicant applied for the visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria in the Sponsored Family stream. The visa applicant seeks to visit his brother, the review applicant, an Australian citizen.

3.    The visa applicant provided application forms (including a sponsorship form from his brother, the review applicant, confirming details relating to himself and his brother) and supporting documents to the Department including identification documents for the applicants showing that they have the same parents; a document from [an] confirming that the visa applicant is a student, studying [Course 1], which he is due to finish [in] May 2018;  bank statements from [a banking institution] in a company name, [Company 1] (the trade licence for this company is held by the applicants’ father and brother [Mr A]), showing regular deposits and withdrawals and transfers for the period September 2016 to April 2017; the review applicant’s [company] bank account showing a balance of over $15,000; the review applicant’s identity page from his Australian passport issued in 2010; and the visa applicant’s passport identity page.

4.    The visa applicant resides in Kabul, and will be leaving behind his parents, brother and sister, nephews, niece and sister-in-law. He would like to stay up to three months (the college he attends confirmed that they will have a student break).

5.    The relatives in Australia are the review applicant and his wife and children.

6.    His brother and father in Kabul will pay for all of his expenses; the review applicant will provide accommodation and any other expenses during his short trip to Australia.   

7. The criteria for a Subclass 600 visa are set out in Part 600 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Relevantly to this case, they include cl.600.211, which requires the visa applicant to satisfy the Minister that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.

8.    The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet cl.600.211 because the delegate was not satisfied that there was a genuine intention to visit Australia. It was stated that:

I am conscious of the applicant’s family links to Australia and the circumstances surrounding
their arrival and ongoing residence. On this basis I consider it necessary to apply a higher
degree of scrutiny to this application, including the applicant’s personal circumstances that
would encourage the applicant to return to their home country and the applicant’s personal
circumstances in their home country or general conditions in their home country which would
encourage the applicant to stay in Australia.

To meet the genuine visitor requirement for this visa, the visa applicant must demonstrate
that their current circumstances support their claims that they intend a genuine visit to
Australia. I acknowledge that the purpose of the applicant’s intended travel is to visit his
brother and his family. While the applicant’s purpose of visit is noted, this in itself does

not demonstrate that the applicant only intends a genuine visit. I have considered the
support rendered by his family, documents provided in support of this application, and the
immigration history of the applicant and his family. However, the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence, in accordance with section 7.2 of Genguide H, to demonstrate that their true intention is only for a genuine temporary stay in Australia.

I have considered the applicant’s personal circumstances in their home country that may
encourage them to remain in Australia. Recent reports from the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade (DFAT) indicate that Afghanistan is currently experiencing civil disruption,
including war, lawlessness and political upheaval. While I accept that the applicant may not
be directly affected by the civil unrest occurring in parts of Afghanistan, these reports indicate
that the entire country is affected by this civil disruption. Given such information, and the civil
unrest in Afghanistan at this time, it raises concerns as to the applicant’s ability to intend
a genuine visit. These factors may encourage the applicant to remain in Australia after the
expiry of any visa, should it be granted.

I have noted that the departmental records indicate that the applicant is a Hazara, a known
persecuted minority group. Departmental records indicate that the incidence of Afghans
from similar circumstances who attempt to change their status while in Australia is high. The applicant has a similar background to other Hazara’s who have applied to change their status
while holding a Visitor Visa- Sponsored Family Stream, and therefore I have concerns that
the applicant’s background may act as a disincentive to comply with his visa conditions while
in Australia or depart within the validity of his visa.

The applicant indicated that he is leaving his parents, brother, sister in-law, two nephew
and niece in Afghanistan during the proposed visit. While I acknowledge that the applicant’s
family may provide some incentive to return, the presence of these family members are not
sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant intends a genuine temporary stay in Australia.

In response to the employment status of the applicant I note that the applicant has indicated
that he is currently enrolled to study at [an Australian institution]. The applicant indicated that he has been studying [a course] since [April] 2016. I acknowledge that the applicant’s study commitments may
offer some incentive for them to return to Afghanistan, however due to the applicant’s limited
personal commitments and ties to Afghanistan, I place limited weight on the applicant’s study
commitments as an incentive to return to Afghanistan. The applicant may be able to defer
that study program and re-commence at a later stage, or possibly transfer to an Australian Education Institution.
The applicant has not provided evidence of any previous travel or demonstrated previous
compliance with immigration laws in Australia or other countries. I have concerns that the
current instability in Afghanistan may act as a disincentive for the applicant to return to
Afghanistan within the validity of their visa. Since the applicant has not demonstrated that
they have previously travelled, complied with their visa conditions and returned home, I
cannot be satisfied that the applicant will comply with his visa conditions and depart Australia
within the validity of his visa.
The applicant did not provide evidence of strong ties to Afghanistan to demonstrate that he
has the incentive to depart Australia within the validity of their visa. I therefore cannot be
satisfied that the applicant will comply with their visa conditions.
I acknowledge that the purpose of the applicant’s intended travel is to visit their family. While
the applicant’s purpose of visit is noted, this in itself does not demonstrate that the applicant
only intends a genuine temporary stay.
After considering the information that was provided as evidence of the applicant’s purpose

in visiting Australia, I am not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to visit Australia
temporarily.

9.    There is no non-disclosure certificate on the Departmental file.

The Tribunal

1. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent (the same agent as represented the visa applicant in the application before the Department).  

2. The review applicant lodged an application for review to the Tribunal and provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record and refusal notification.

3. The review applicant provided to the Tribunal bank statements from [a banking institution] in the company name, [Company 1], showing regular deposits and withdrawals and transfers for the period May 2017 until May 2018.

4. The hearing was postponed for a significant period of time as the review applicant was travelling overseas. His itinerary was provided showing that he was going to Afghanistan. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 August 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the visa applicant by telephone. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi (Persian) and English languages.

5. The review applicant’s evidence includes the following:

   ·     The visa applicant lives in Kabul with his parents and brothers. He is studying full-time and helping his father with his business.

   ·     He finished high school and studied a pre-university course ([Course 1] as referred above), and has now been accepted to study [Course 2] at Kabul University (the visa applicant said he had started studying this course about one month ago).

   ·     The father’s business is a [factory] in Kabul, which they have had for generations; it was built up by his father and grandfather.

   ·     In 2001 the review applicant came to Australia by boat and claimed refugee protection. His case went to the Refugee Review Tribunal. When asked for the reason why he came to Australia – he said that during the war, they did not have rights, they were not free, they were fearing the Taliban because they were Hazaras. The review applicant is now an Australian citizen. He has returned 4-5 times to visit his family (including the visa applicant); most recently in 2018 for one month, then about three years before that, and again 3-4 years before that.

   ·     When asked whether he has any family, including extended family, cousins, second cousins in Australia, he said no, except there are some family relatives from the village who came to Australia the same time he came to Australia.

   ·     He sponsored his wife to come to Australia.

   ·     When asked why the visa applicant would return to Afghanistan after visiting Australia, the review applicant said because he is helping with his father’s business, he is doing his father’s [work]. The Tribunal suggested that someone else must have been doing the [work] previously and the review applicant agreed, but said that person was not trustworthy.

   ·     The Tribunal asked if there were any other reasons why the visa applicant would return and he said there were not really any other reasons why he will go back.

   ·     When asked if there was anything else he wanted to say to the Tribunal, he said that he needs to send back the visa applicant after his visit because his father is alone in the business, he is getting older and then the visa applicant will have to run the business after their father.

   ·     The review applicant told the Tribunal that the name of the father and brother’s business was [Company 1]. He said that the businesses of the other brothers’ [were] separate, the Tribunal asked for the names of their businesses and the review applicant’s evidence was somewhat changing. He said the others do not really have a business they just have a workshop from which they carry out timber trading; for example [Mr A] does trade with [another country]. The Tribunal put to the review applicant that if [Mr A] was doing trade with [another country], he must have a business name under which he operates, and the review applicant said he doesn’t know about that, he doesn’t know the name of his company. He said the whole family does timber trading but they all operate separately.

   ·     When the Tribunal put to the review applicant that if the visa applicant remained in Australia, then the brothers could help the father with the business, he said that those brothers couldn’t help the father because their businesses are separate; once you are married, the business is separate.

   ·     When the visa applicant comes to Australia, the father will do the business by himself.

6. The visa applicant’s evidence included confirmation that he had started his [Course 2] studies, he helps his father out one day a week and any other time he can with the business, doing [work]. The Tribunal put to the visa applicant that it has some concerns that he may want to stay in Australia. In response he said he will not do this, he wants to come to Australia to visit the family and he will not stay because he is assisting his father and studying at university.

7. Further relevant evidence and information is set out below.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in this case is whether cl.600.211 is met, which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, having regard to whether the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the last substantive visa, or any subsequent bridging visa, held by the applicant was subject; whether the applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject; and any other relevant matter.

10. In the present case, the visa applicant seeks the visa for the purposes of visiting his Australian citizen brother. This is a purpose for which a visa in the Sponsored Family stream may be granted: cl.600.231.

11. In considering whether a visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for this purpose, the Tribunal must consider whether he or she has complied substantially with the conditions of the last substantive visa held, or any subsequent bridging visa (cl.600.211(a)). The visa applicant has not however previously visited Australia.

12. The Tribunal must also consider whether the visa applicant intends to comply with the conditions to which the Subclass 600 visa would be subject (cl.600.211(b)). The conditions to which a visa in the circumstances of this case would be subject are as follows (cl.600.612):

    ·     8101 – must not work in Australia

    ·     8201 – must not engage in study or training in Australia for more than 3 months

    ·     8503 – not entitled to a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while remaining in Australia

    ·     8531 – must not remain in Australia after end of permitted stay.

13. The Tribunal has also considered all other relevant matters (cl.600.211(c)). In doing so, the Tribunal considered, but is not bound by, the Department’s policy guidance contained in its Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3).

14. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant intends a genuine visit in Australia. The Tribunal’s concerns have arisen upon a consideration of the evidence referred to above and below, and for the reasons set out below.

15. As discussed with the review applicant, the Tribunal has to weigh up the incentives for the visa applicant to comply with a visa and the incentives for him not to comply, for example to seek to remain in Australia and lodge a protection visa (for which he would be entitled to apply). The Tribunal noted that the review applicant had come to Australia and lodged a protection visa application on the basis of matters including his Hazara ethnicity.

16. The Tribunal had concerns with the evidence of the applicants and the extent to which it could rely upon their assertions that the visa applicant only intends a genuine stay and then to return to Afghanistan. The concerns arose from inconsistent evidence which was put to the applicant pursuant to s.359AA of the Act and which the Tribunal considered undermined the claim that the assertions that the visa applicant only intends a genuine visit are true. These included the following.

17. Evidence relating to whether the two other brothers also live with the parents, or whether it is just the visa applicant and his sister. The review applicant put forward as an incentive for the visa applicant to return that their parents are getting older and the visa applicant is the younger sibling, and will have to look after the parents. As noted above, the review applicant told the Tribunal that the visa applicant lives with the family: his parents and the two other brothers.

18. The visa applicant however gave inconsistent evidence, stating that he only lives with his father and mother and sister. When asked whether he lived with anyone else, he said no, not his brothers, because those who get married, live separately. The Tribunal put to the visa applicant that the review applicant had said that he was living with his brothers. In response, the visa applicant said that he is living with his father; his brothers live in the same neighbourhood. When the Tribunal put this inconsistency to the review applicant pursuant to s.359AA of the Act, noting that the visa applicant’s evidence indicated that he was the one living with his parents and thus was responsible for them (and thus his sole responsibility for his parents is an incentive to return home), whereas the review applicant’s evidence indicated that it was not just the visa applicant who would be responsible for the parents, given that the other two brothers with their families also lived with the parents. In response, the review applicant said that they live in a large place, like a compound, and they have separate walls and are living separately.

19. The Tribunal was concerned with the initial evidence of the visa applicant and its inconsistency with the evidence of the review applicant; but even if it accepts the review applicant’s explanation, the evidence indicates that it is not just the visa applicant who lives with, and could help care for the visa applicant’s parents if they needed it; thus, while the presence of the parents is an incentive to return, the Tribunal considers that there are other brothers with families who could assist in looking after the parents, and it does not accept that the visa applicant is solely responsible for the care of his parents.

20. Evidence relating to the business, which was said to be an incentive for the visa applicant to return. When asked, the visa applicant said that his two brothers based in Afghanistan have never had anything to do with the business of his father (which the visa applicant helps in and must go back to continue to help in), nor have they had any involvement in the business name [Company 1]. The Tribunal noted however that the visa applicant had produced in support of his visa application, a trade licence issued [in] August 2016 for [Company 1] in the name of his father and [Mr A]. The Tribunal noted that this was inconsistent with the visa applicant’s evidence that there has never been involvement between [Mr A] in his father’s company.

1. The Tribunal considered the information to be relevant, given that the visa applicant had produced this document and having regard to the evidence that he was helping with the accounts of [Company 1] (noting that bank accounts for this company had been produced in support of the application by the review applicant).

2. The Tribunal put to the review applicant that the inconsistency between the visa applicant’s evidence and the trade licence was of concern; the trade licence indicates that the business is run by the father and [Mr A] together; and this undermines the claim that the other brothers are not involved in the business and thus the business is a significant incentive for the visa applicant to return because he will have to be solely responsible for assisting his father with the business. The Tribunal was concerned that this undermined the credibility of the visa applicant.

3. In response the review applicant said that it is different in Afghanistan, it is not as if such documents are displayed on the wall. [Mr A’s] name was probably just added to the business name when he started doing work in [another country]. The review applicant also said he had not seen the trade licence before.

4. The Tribunal has also taken into account the visa applicant’s assertion that the trade licence is beyond his knowledge, he just goes after his study to help his father with the accounts. Issues around licencing are a matter related to officials and he doesn’t get involved in that but when he has free time he helps his father in [work].

5. A further concern arising from the trade licence was put to the review applicant pursuant to s.359AA of the Act; namely that the trade licence appears to indicate that the business name was established in 2013 (and this licence was issued 28 August 2016). This indicates that it is a fairly recent occurrence that the father and brother [Mr A] have been involved in business together, which was inconsistent with the review applicant’s evidence that they were not doing business together. The review applicant said he didn’t know about the trade licence, and the business is run rather loosely over there, on trust.

6. The agent later submitted that the visa applicant is young, just assisting with the accounts, and this role does not mean that he has to know about the trade licence. He also submitted that the business was just one incentive to return, and that the visa applicant’s evidence about this had not shown a strong commitment to returning because of the business. The Tribunal noted that this was an incentive that the review applicant had put forward and the agent agreed and said it was one of a number of incentives.

7. While the Tribunal accepts it is possible (although perhaps unlikely), that the visa applicant, who does the accounts for the business, had no idea that his brother was a part owner of the trade licence for the business, the Tribunal notes that the trade licence was produced in support of the visa application, and it indicates that there is involvement in the business by a sibling other than the visa applicant. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept the assertion that the visa applicant is the only one who can or will assist the father in the business. The Tribunal considers that it is more likely that all of the brothers are involved in the family business and that while assisting in the business may be some incentive for the visa applicant to return, the Tribunal does not accept that he is the only one to have responsibility to assist the father in the business because he is the younger unmarried sibling.

8. The Tribunal has taken into account the review applicant saying that sometimes the visa applicant may panic or get excited (when giving evidence); the Tribunal does not consider that this can explain the inconsistencies in the evidence discussed above, which the visa applicant and review applicant were given opportunities to explain.

9. Evidence relating to the review applicant’s protection claims.  The Tribunal had access to the decision record of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated [in] October 2006 where the review applicant had claimed that his father, brothers and mother had escaped from Afghanistan to Iran. The Tribunal noted that this was inconsistent with the review applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal that his family had never left Afghanistan. In response to this information put pursuant to s.359AA of the Act, the review applicant said that he thought the Tribunal meant, by its question, to ask whether his family had (now/ recently) left Afghanistan. The Tribunal notes that the review applicant would have been aware that the issue of past international travel was an issue raised by the delegate in the decision record (and a lack thereof was not in his favour according to the delegate); further, having regard to the question asked (namely whether his family had ever left Afghanistan), the Tribunal does not accept this explanation. The review applicant then agreed that his family had gone to Iran; and he claimed that his family had travelled to [another country] the previous year, and on some occasions before that. The Tribunal considers that his initial response undermines the claims about his family previously escaping Afghanistan for fear of harm in his refugee application. The Tribunal considers that this undermines the weight the Tribunal can place on the review applicant’s assurances about the visa applicant’s intentions.  

10. In conclusion, the Tribunal has taken into account the evidence and submission that the visa applicant is from a well-established family and that his incentives include that he will return and work in the family business and do his [Course 2]. It was suggested that he is in a good position, having managed to get into this course, and if he came to Australia and applied for asylum he would have to delay his studies while he was waiting for a successful immigration outcome, and he would have to work as a labourer while waiting.

11. The Tribunal has also considered the submission that the father is getting older (he is [age] years old) and will need help. The Tribunal put to the review applicant its concerns with the suggestion that it is solely the visa applicant’s responsibility to assist in the business (and that the older brothers have no involvement in the business) and to take care of the father.  While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the visa applicant may have some responsibility towards the parents and the father’s business, as the Tribunal put to the review applicant it is difficult to accept that the review applicant from Australia, as well as the two brothers present in Kabul, would not assist the parents (or their business) just because they are married.  In light of the evidence, the Tribunal has not accepted this assertion; it does not accept that his business or parents are significant incentives to the extent that he would not seek to remain in Australia.

12. The Tribunal noted that the visa applicant has incentives to remain in Australia, including the presence of his older brother, the review applicant, with his family, and when considering the difficulties for Hazaras with the country situation as well as the general security situation in Afghanistan. The Tribunal referred to some extracts from the Thematic DFAT report on Hazaras,[1] noting that Hazaras are a persecuted minority and in terms of security, Kabul can be considered dangerous.

    [1] See annexure A

13. The review applicant said that the visa applicant will go back, Afghanistan is just like this. The agent submitted that although there are lots of reasons for Hazaras to seek to leave, as it is acknowledged that there has been a civil war ongoing for 40 years, this does not mean that all Hazaras seek to leave or are subject to ethnic persecution; this is a wealthy family who live in a good area of Kabul, the family pin their hopes on this son who has a bright future ahead of him and want him to finish his education and get involved in the family business. The agent also noted that he has attended before different Tribunal members who have referred to country information indicating that there are no problems in Afghanistan for Hazaras. The Tribunal noted that he may be referring to protection visa applications, and that there is a different test involved when considering the country situation in relation to visitor visas. The Tribunal notes that in visitor visa cases, it is considering the incentives for an applicant to remain in Australia, and to return to their home country. While the Tribunal accepts that there are incentives to return to Afghanistan which have been referred to, and also that the review applicant has been back to visit Afghanistan, it does have real concerns that the country situation, the visa applicant’s ethnicity and the presence of his brother and other factors are stronger incentives to remain in Australia.

14. The Tribunal has considered the DFAT assessments that the Hazaras’ previous experience of life under the Taliban and earlier episodes of discrimination have caused many to feel particular concern about the long-term prospects for their community; this concern is an important factor contributing to the decision of many Hazaras to leave Afghanistan, and that the Afghan government has limited capacity to address security concerns in Kabul and that the city is a significant target for suicide and complex attacks against both civilian and non-civilian targets carried out by non-government elements. DFAT assesses that Hazaras, like other Afghans, are vulnerable to the threat posed by indiscriminate methods of attack against specific targets in Kabul. Further the assessments in relation to discrimination are also relevant: DFAT assesses that Hazaras are more likely than other ethnic groups to be excluded from senior civil service positions due to their ethnicity, even if there is no official policy of discrimination against them. DFAT assesses that Hazaras are subject to a moderate risk of societal discrimination in practice, as they are generally less likely than other groups to be in a position to benefit from ethnically based positive discrimination.

15. The Tribunal also considered that the review applicant himself came to Australia and claimed protection; and that this is something that the visa applicant could do, if the incentives to remain/ not return to Afghanistan are sufficient. When taking everything into account, the Tribunal is not prepared to place much weight on the credibility of the assertions that the visa applicant only intends a genuine visit. While the Tribunal has sympathy for the visa applicant, the Tribunal considers the presence of the review applicant and his family, a safer environment in Australia for a young man with potential (even if he has to put his studies on hold in the short term), the fact that the review applicant has already come to Australia and successfully claimed asylum and thereafter made his life here and is raising a family, and that there are family members back home who can assist with the business and his parents, leads the Tribunal to conclude that the incentives to remain are stronger than those to return to Afghanistan. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the visa applicant intends a genuine visit.

16. For the above reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, and finds that the requirements of cl.600.211 are not met.

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.

    Christine Cody
    Member

    
    

    ANNEXURE A – EXTRACTS FROM THE THEMATIC DFAT REPORT, 18 SEPTEMBER 2017

    History

    2.7Hazaras have made significant social, political and economic gains in Afghanistan since 2001, albeit from a low base. However, the continuing armed insurgency conducted by the Taliban and other groups, including in recent months a local affiliate of the Islamic State terrorist organisation, has raised questions over the sustainability of Afghanistan’s progress. While Afghans of all ethnicities feel uncertain about Afghanistan’s future, DFAT assesses that the Hazaras’ previous experience of life under the Taliban and earlier episodes of discrimination have caused many to feel particular concern about the long-term prospects for their community. This concern is an important factor contributing to the decision of many Hazaras to leave Afghanistan.

    Economic Situation

    2.8      As noted in the DFAT Country Report on Afghanistan, unemployment and underemployment are very high across Afghanistan. People from all ethnicities regularly travel to find employment opportunities, including leaving Afghanistan - many Hazaras travel to Iran in search of work. DFAT assesses that poor economic opportunities act as a strong ‘push factor’ for both internal relocation in, and emigration from Afghanistan for Afghans of all ethnicities.

    Kabul

    2.12    …Hazaras tend to be under-represented in senior civil service positions. This is largely due to the importance of familial, ethnic and tribal connections in Afghanistan: those making hiring decisions for both government and private sector positions commonly place more importance on such connections than on merit.

    Security Situation - Kabul

    2.23      The Afghan government has limited capacity to address security concerns in Kabul. The city is a significant target for suicide and complex attacks against both civilian and non-civilian targets carried out by non-government elements. Attacks are often directed against specific targets, including government institutions, political figures, Afghan and international security forces, demonstrations, foreign diplomatic missions, and international organisations. However, the methods of attack can be indiscriminate and often result in civilian casualties. UNAMA reported that 77 per cent of all civilian casualties arising from suicide and complex attacks in 2016 occurred in Kabul city: 16 incidents resulting in 1,514 civilian casualties (308 deaths and 1,206 injured), a 75 per cent increase compared to 2015 (see also ‘Shi’a’).

    2.24    In its Midyear Report for 2017, UNAMA reported that 219 conflict-related deaths and 829 injured in Kabul in the first six months of 2017. Suicide and complex attacks continued to be the leading cause of casualties, followed by improvised explosive devices and targeted killings.

    2.25    The Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) and international forces have put in place a range of counter-measures to prevent and respond to insurgent attacks in Kabul. These include numerous checkpoints along highways leading into Kabul, at major intersections and outside government and international institutions. These checkpoints provide a deterrent to insurgent attacks by increasing the probability of detection of insurgents before they are able to carry out their attacks. Nevertheless, these checkpoints vary in their effectiveness, and violent attacks within the city are common.

    2.26    DFAT assesses that Hazaras, like other Afghans, are vulnerable to the threat posed by indiscriminate methods of attack against specific targets in Kabul. However, ordinary Hazaras who reside in Hazara-majority areas of Kabul and do not have open affiliations with the government or international community (see ‘People associated with the government or the international community’) are unlikely to face any greater threat than are Afghans of other ethnicities.

    Race/Nationality

    3.3      DFAT assesses that Hazaras are more likely than other ethnic groups to be excluded from senior civil service positions due to their ethnicity, even if there is no official policy of discrimination against them. DFAT assesses that Hazaras are subject to a moderate risk of societal discrimination in practice, as they are generally less likely than other groups to be in a position to benefit from ethnically based positive discrimination. This is, however, less likely to be the case in the Hazarajat.

    State Protection

    4.1 The continuing armed insurgency and deteriorating security situation nationwide has challenged the government’s ability to exercise effective control over large parts of the country, particularly outside major urban centres and provincial capitals. As a result, the government lacks the ability to adequately address human rights issues, protect vulnerable groups, and prosecute human rights violators in some areas of the country. In rural areas, many Afghan groups, including Hazaras, maintain their own local militias to protect themselves from criminals and insurgents, in the absence of effective state protection mechanisms.

    4.2 The increase in the number and scale of major attacks that have taken place in Kabul since the beginning of 2016 demonstrate the limits of the government’s ability to protect its citizens even in a place where its security infrastructure is strongest. Hazaras, like other Afghans, are vulnerable to the threat posed by indiscriminate methods of attack against specific targets in Kabul. Hazaras are particularly vulnerable to religiously motivated attacks, as demonstrated by the series of attacks carried out against Shi’a in Kabul and other locations in late 2016 and early 2017.