1713697 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 6580

1713697 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6580 (29 August 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1713697

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan

MEMBER:Paul Windsor

DATE:29 August 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 29 August 2019 at 4:06pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion – Christian – Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – anti-blasphemy laws – societal discrimination – sectarian violence – Taliban or other extremist Islamic groups – actual or imputed political opinion – pro-foreign defence forces – particular social group – former employee of companies supporting foreign defence forces – internal relocation – Lahore – Islamabad/Rawalpindi – credibility concerns – inconsistent information in relation to employment history and places of residence – implausible claims – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA  (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

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 and Border Protection on 9 June 2017 to refuse to grant [the applicant] a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. [The applicant], who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa on 14 November 2014.  A summary of relevant law applicable at the time of application is at Attachment A.

3. In his Protection visa application [the applicant] claimed to be a citizen of Pakistan who was born in Karachi in Sindh Province Pakistan on [date].  He stated he is of the Christian faith and indicated he speaks, reads and writes English and Urdu and speaks Punjabi.  He indicated he had never married or been in a de facto relationship.  He stated that he departed Pakistan legally [in] May 2014 and arrived in Australia [in] May 2014, entering on a [Prospective Marriage] visa.[1]

   [1] See folios 14-29 of Departmental file [number].

4. In his Protection visa application [the applicant] claimed to fear persecution from the Taliban and Islamic extremists because of his Christian religion and his previous employment with [Company 1] and [Company 2], which resulted in a fatwa being issued against him.[2]

   [2] See folios 19-22 of Departmental file [number].

5. While finding that, when considered cumulatively, [the applicant]’s circumstances may give rise to him facing a real chance of suffering persecution in his home region of Karachi, the delegate refused to grant the visa because she considered it would be reasonable for [the applicant] to relocate to Lahore or Islamabad/Rawalpindi where he would not face a real chance of suffering persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm.

6. [The applicant] applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision on 27 June 2017.  He provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record.[3]

   [3] See folios 1-9 of the Tribunal file.

7. [The applicant] appeared before the Tribunal on 23 August 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted in the English language.  [The applicant] married [Ms A] in Australia [in] April 2018 and they have a child, [Child B], who was born on [date].  [Ms A] and [Child B] attended the hearing as observers.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Claims

8. [The applicant]’s claims for protection as set out in detail in a statement included with his Protection visa application are summarised as follows:[4]

   [4] See folios 19-22 of Departmental file [number].

   ·He was born and raised in a Christian family.   He and his family joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2001.  He served a mission with the church from 2005 until December 2007.

   ·[In] January 2008, soon after he returned from his mission, he joined [Company 1], a sub-vendor of [Company 2], which dealt with [foreign defence forces].  He was hired to assist the [Position 1] dealing with [specified work].  He was assigned to [a specified task].  He was able to highlight a few suspicious [activities] through GPS tracking.  His work meant many of the [Position 2] knew him personally as he made phone calls to them about their [activities].

   ·[In] March 2012 he received a call from an unknown caller stating they are going to kill him soon for working with companies supporting [foreign defence forces].  They told him they knew he is Christian and he is supporting Christian forces in [Country 1].  He observed cars following him and had to change his route constantly.  He reported the threats to management but they said they could not do anything for his security.  When the harassing and chasing increased and he again reported to management, but they could only offer him a letter stating he is working for [Company 1] which they said he could show police to seek police help, he decided to quit the job at the end of April 2012 for his safety.

   ·In June 2012 he tried to get work in [Country 2] but was unsuccessful so returned to Pakistan in July 2012.  He was afraid to stay in Karachi so moved to Lahore where his maternal uncle lived but could not find work there so moved to Islamabad where he had church friends (who had served on mission with him) but had no success there either.  His friends were able to support him on hard days so he started living there and ‘continue finding a job from one company to another’.

   ·While he doesn’t know if other companies thought the same, he came to know from a Christian [Occupation 1] at one company in Islamabad where he had been called for an interview, that a hiring manager had commented after looking at his resume that he had been involved in [specified work] supporting [foreign defence forces] and therefore had been part of the process in which Muslim blood was shed in [Country 1] and is an enemy of Islam.

   ·In early September 2012 he returned to Karachi despite the risk to his safety because his mother was unwell.  [In] September 2012 two mobile snatchers on a bike caught him on the street when he was walking home from church and took his wallet, money, mobile phone and a church magazine.  Such crimes are very common in Karachi.  He reported the crime to police as his Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC) was in his wallet and he needed to apply for a new one.  He returned to Islamabad in the first week of October 2012.

   ·He later came to know that in November or December 2012 a fatwa had been issued against him by the Taliban, and that the mobile snatchers who had taken the church magazine from him also belonged to the same Islamic extremist group (the Taliban) which had been harassing and tracking him before because of his work for [Company 1].  From the church magazine they came to know he is a Christian and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who believe there is a living prophet on earth, which is blasphemy to them.  Now they knew his home address because they had his CNIC.  

   ·The fatwa was distributed to all the mosques in the area where his family were residing.  [In] December 2012 his family came under attack by a group of five or more Muslim young men who stood outside their house firing and shouting that he should come out otherwise everyone inside would be killed.  His family called the police and the men ran away when police arrived.  His father went with police to the police station to make a report but investigating officers altered the report after members of the local mosque committee showed up and asked that the case be closed as it was just a little fight due to a misunderstanding and exchange of harsh words.

   ·They came to know about the fatwa on 18 December 2012 when his father’s friend gave them a copy.  On 21 December 2012 his father moved to a new safe place rented in [Locality 1] of Karachi and then kept moving from one place to another.  This was a hard time for his family surviving on the little amount from his father’s pension while he was in Islamabad unable to find a job.

   ·After being jobless for a year he was offered a job by [Company 2] dealing with [specified work] of [foreign defence forces] from [Country 1].  Even though he knew it was a great risk, as he had no money he decided to return to Karachi.  He worked for them [from] May 2013 for one year.  During this time he kept changing location, staying with his friend, relative and sometimes with his family.  He also came to know the Taliban tracked him with his picture in Lahore and Islamabad.

   ·[In] May 2014 two Muslim young men on a bike caught him at one of the busy shopping sites in Karachi.  He was beaten and choked but was saved by passers-by who called the police.  They said they had been searching for him for a year and had finally found him and it was lucky for him they did not have firearms with them right now.

   ·Following this incident, he ‘took flight’ [in] May 2014 and [in] May was in Australia.

   ·The situation in Karachi has worsened with attacks on the airport, air force base and CID inspector a few examples of the Taliban’s recent activities.  Their hold on the city continues to grow.  Many people have left their jobs and the country for their security, including the General Manager of [Company 2], [Mr C], who resigned and went to [Country 3] with his family.

   ·He fears if he returns they will find him and take his life, or anyone from his area can launch an FIR (First Information Report) against him and accuse him of blasphemy under law 295C, or kill him like a Christian couple in Lahore who were thrown into a brick kiln where they worked, after being accused of desecrating the Quran.

   ·ISIS is also starting to get its roots in Pakistan.

9. [The applicant] included copies of numerous documents in support of his application, including news articles regarding the [operations of foreign defence forces] in Pakistan; emails dated from 16 December 2013 until 10 May 2014 relevant to [the applicant]’s employment with [Company 2]; emails from February and March 2011 related to [the applicant]’s employment with [Company 1]; identity documents including a family registration report; education and training certificates; employment and church references; police and medical reports; tenancy agreements; and a copy of the claimed fatwa issued against him.[5]

   [5] See folios 30-188 of Departmental file [number].

10. [The applicant] attended an interview with the delegate on 8 February 2017.  The delegate’s decision record indicates that he made the following additional claims at the interview:

    ·    He has been discriminated against throughout his life owing to his religion.

    ·[Company 1] is under investigation regarding missing cargo, which seems to have been due to internal corruption.  He is afraid that people from [Company 1] may hurt or kill him because he was part of that team while they were engaging in corrupt activities.

    Findings and reasons

    Identity

11. Considering the copy of [the applicant]’s Pakistani passport provided to the Department and noting the delegate’s findings in this regard, the Tribunal finds that [the applicant] is a citizen of Pakistan as claimed.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Pakistan is his country of nationality for Convention purposes and is his ‘receiving country’ for complementary protection purposes.[6]

    Key Issues

    [6] See folio 49 of Departmental file [number].

12. The key issues in this review are whether [the applicant] faces a real chance of suffering treatment amounting to persecution involving serious harm if he was to return to Pakistan, from the Taliban and/or other Islamic extremist groups (including ISIS) or individuals because of his Christian faith and/or because he has an actual or imputed political opinion of opposition to the Taliban and/or other extremist Islamic groups or individuals; or from people associated with [Company 1] because they were engaging in corrupt activities; and if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk [the applicant] will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

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

    Credibility

14. The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:

    …care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.

15. The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):

    The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.

16. When assessing claims made by applicants the Tribunal needs to make findings of fact in relation to those claims. This usually involves an assessment of the credibility of the applicants. When doing so it is important to bear in mind the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers. The benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.

17. The Tribunal must bear in mind that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220).

18. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out (see Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.)

19. For the reasons discussed in detail below the Tribunal found [the applicant]’s evidence suffered from serious inconsistencies and in some instances was implausible.  The Tribunal found that [the applicant] was not truthful in some of his evidence.  Overall the Tribunal found that he was not a credible witness and did not accept his claims that he left his employment at [Company 1] at the end of April 2012 and fled Karachi because he received a death threat and discovered that people were following him, that subsequently a fatwa was issued against him and his family home was attacked by a group of Muslim men demanding he come out, and that Taliban members who had been looking for him attacked him on the street in Karachi when they saw him there in May 2014.   

    Assessment of claims

    Background

20. At the hearing [the applicant] indicated that his mother had passed away and his father and sister had moved to the city of Hyderabad in Sindh province (the second largest city in Sindh province, located 140 km east of Karachi).  He indicated that [a number of his siblings] are living in Pakistan while one is in [Country 4] where he is studying.  He said two of his [siblings] are living in Karachi where both are working as [Occupation 2].  He said his other two [siblings] are living in [Locality 2] in Punjab province, about one and a half to two hours’ drive from Lahore, where one is working as a [Occupation 3] in a [workplace] and the other is not working.

21. [The applicant] indicated that his father is retired and receives a pension after serving for [many] years in the Pakistan [defence force].  He also indicated that his father had worked in [an organisation] including at a [club] for [specific patrons].

22. [The applicant] indicated he had been a Christian from birth and his family had initially been members of the Presbyterian Church.  He said the whole family had converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2001 after being introduced to this church by a family friend.  The Tribunal queried [the applicant] about the role of his father in the church, commenting that it had noted that his father was referred to as ‘Reverend’ in some of the supporting documents he had provided.  He indicated that his father was not a pastor but had been on the church committee.

23. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] about the Australian immigration status of his wife, [Ms A].  He indicated that she holds a Student visa which he thinks expires in March 2020.

24. The Tribunal queried [the applicant] that the marriage certificate he had submitted indicates that he and [Ms A] were married in a Catholic church.  He replied that he is still a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but is not active.  He said there is a Catholic church behind their home in Melbourne and his wife is a Catholic.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] if he now attends the Catholic Church.  He said he does sometimes but not regularly, adding that he goes maybe once a month.  He then commented that there is a Pakistani fellowship and he goes to that on Saturdays fortnightly.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he had abandoned the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the evidence he had submitted previously which indicated he had undertaken two missions and appears to have been highly regarded by elders of the church.  [The applicant] commented that he stopped his activities with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while he was in Pakistan because his mother was concerned about his condition.  He said he was moving around, did not feel very comfortable and there had been ‘all these incidents happening’.  He commented that his mother became afraid, especially when their home was attacked, and asked him not to go to the church.  In relation to his missionary activities he indicated he did one mission of two years duration, which comprised 19 days training in [Country 5] followed by 6 months in [Country 6] and the rest of the time was spent in Pakistan – in Lahore, Islamabad and Sialkot in Punjab province.  The Tribunal queried [the applicant] that he had indicated in his statement that after the incident involving his family home he was still in Islamabad and was still involved with the church.  He replied that they were still supporting him ‘a bit’.  [The applicant] commented that now he is not really active in any church.  

25. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] who sponsored him for the [Prospective Marriage] visa he used to enter Australia [in] May 2014.  He said her name was [Ms D].  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he did not proceed to marry [Ms D].  He said that when he came to Australia he talked to her and told her he needed more time to ‘settle a little bit’ because he had come from a really hard situation in Pakistan.  He indicated that [Ms D] and her family kept pressuring him which led to arguments.  The Tribunal asked him whether [Ms D] met him at the airport when he arrived in Australia.  He indicated that she said she was at the airport but commented that unfortunately she did not see him and he did not have a phone and was unable to contact her.  He said he caught a taxi into the city where he was dropped off at a hotel and contacted her once he was able to buy an Australian SIM card.  Noting that he speaks English well, the Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he did not call [Ms D] as soon as possible, such as from a payphone at the airport, or ask someone at the airport for assistance in contacting her if necessary.  He replied that he was confused, new to Australia and nervous.  The Tribunal found this account odd given [the applicant] purportedly was coming to Australia to be with someone who he was engaged to and was intending to marry.  From his evidence at the hearing the Tribunal did not get the sense that [the applicant] made any effort to look for, meet with or contact [Ms D] on arrival at the airport or immediately on arrival at his hotel, as would be expected in circumstances where she had come to meet him at the airport as her fiancé and a first time traveller to Australia, and considers this raises doubts about whether he ever had a genuine intention to pursue a relationship with her.

1. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] when he applied for the Prospective Marriage visa and when was it granted.  He said he applied in April 2013 and the visa was granted in April 2014, one month before he came to Australia on 18 May 2014.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he had not made any mention of this or his relationship with [Ms D] in the four page statement he submitted with his Protection visa application.  He replied that he wrote his statement by himself and tried to cover as much information as he could regarding his situation in Pakistan.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] how he first met [Ms D].  He indicated that they met through an online church singles group.  He said she was also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] if he ever met [Ms D] in person before he came to Australia.  He said they met when she came to Islamabad for a week in March 2013.  He indicated that initially he had sought a Visitor visa to come to Australia to meet [Ms D] and her family for Christmas in 2012 but that application was refused.  He indicated a subsequent Visitor visa application was also refused but as he and [Ms D] had indicated in the application they would like to meet as they were thinking about marrying, when [Ms D] spoke to the Department it was suggested that a Prospective Marriage visa might be a better option.  They were advised, however, that it is a requirement for the grant of a Prospective Marriage visa that the parties have met in person.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] where in Pakistan he was living at the time [Ms D] came to Islamabad in March 2013.  He said he was living in Islamabad.

2. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] where [Ms D] stayed when she visited Islamabad.  He said he booked a hotel for her.  The Tribunal asked who paid for her accommodation.  [The applicant] replied that he paid for one room and then she paid for another as there were some political problems due to a protest in Islamabad and she had to move location.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] how he was able to afford that given he had indicated in his statement that he was penniless at the time.  He said his friends helped him.

3. The Tribunal queried [the applicant] that the statement he submitted with his Protection visa application seems to imply that he left Pakistan [in] May 2014 because he was attacked [in] May 2014, but it seems he had actually been planning to come to Australia for a long time before that date.  [The applicant] replied that when he applied for the Prospective Marriage visa he was going through a really hard time, both financially and emotionally, and was not expecting to go back to Karachi, but [Company 2] offered him a job.  He said he was not expecting that the processing of the Prospective Marriage visa would take one year.  He said that when he returned to Karachi he kept changing his location to keep safe but when he was advised he had got the visa he had to do some shopping and went to Tariq road to do that and was probably a little bit careless.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] how long he spent in Islamabad.  He said that he went to [Country 2] in June 2012 and returned in July 2012 (via Karachi) then went to Lahore and then to Islamabad.  He indicated that during this time he returned to Karachi to visit his mother for a month in September 2012.  He said he returned to Karachi in April or May 2013.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] again if he was living in Islamabad when [Ms D] visited in March 2013.  He replied ‘yes’.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] if he was living in Islamabad when he made the Prospective Marriage visa application in April 2013.  He replied ‘yes’.  The Tribunal found unconvincing [the applicant]’s explanation of why he did not make any mention of his relationship with [Ms D] or having applied for a Prospective Marriage visa in April 2013 in the statement submitted with his Protection visa application.  The Tribunal considers that if he had tried to cover as much as he could of his situation in Pakistan, as he claimed, he would have mentioned these matters.  The Tribunal considers that [the applicant] not mentioning these matters supports the Tribunal’s concerns that he never had a genuine intention of pursuing a relationship with [Ms D] once he got to Australia.

   Claimed death threat arising from employment at [Company 1]

4. In his written statement [the applicant] claimed that he left his employment at [Company 1] at the end of April 2012 because he received a death threat on 15 March 2012 for being a Christian and supporting Christian forces in Afghanistan.  He said after that he noticed cars chasing him when he was going home and had to change his route constantly but his company did not take any action for his security and suggested it was temporary and would end soon.  He stated that when the harassing and chasing increased, and the company said all they could do was give him a letter stating he worked for [Company 1] so he could ask police for help himself, he decided to quit for his and his family’s safety.

5. At the hearing [the applicant] indicated that he received just the one threat call.  He said he spoke with his boss who reassured him that he should not worry about it, that everything would be okay and nothing would happen.  He said he spoke with his boss again when he noticed someone was following him but was told all they could do was give him a letter which he could use to seek help from the police.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] how he knew he was being followed.  He said the [Company 1] office was in a big [building] in the Karachi neighbourhood of [Suburb 1], which is a residential area.  He indicated he travelled to work on a motorbike and parked inside the [gate], and noticed when he left to go home there was a car parked just outside the gate which followed him.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that in such a scenario, where he was known to these people who had issued a death threat against him and knew where he worked, it would seem that he would have been incredibly vulnerable - it would have been very easy for them to stop him and fire on him as he came out the gate rather than try to follow him home to find out where he lived.  [The applicant] agreed that could have killed him by shooting at him or hitting his bike but commented that he really did not know their intention.

6. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] if anyone else at the company had been threatened.  He indicated that he was not aware of anyone else being threatened at that time but said he only spoke to one person about his situation, the son of the company head.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that the advice he says he received seems to suggest that others had not been threatened or harmed.  He said he did not know.  The Tribunal found [the applicant]’s account of this claimed incident unconvincing.  The Tribunal considers that if the Taliban or other Islamic extremists knew who he was and had called him indicating he would be killed soon, and knew where he worked and that he rode a motorcycle, they would not have persisted in waiting outside his office gate and seeking to follow him home while he repeatedly evaded them and changed his route (so they would not know where he lived), but would have acted on their threat when he was most vulnerable – by ambushing him when the [gate] was opened and he sought to leave on his motorbike from where [Company 1] had their offices.  Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] received a death threat in March 2012 from the Taliban or other Islamic extremists due to his religion and employment at [Company 1], or that people harassed him and/or sought to follow him home when he left work. 

7. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal has considered the copy of a letter purportedly from [Company 1] dated 4 May 2012 submitted to the Department.[7]  This reference letter, purportedly signed by [Mr E], ‘[Position 1]’ at [Company 1] states that [the applicant] worked with [Company 1] from [January] 2008 until [May] 2012.  Noting the DFAT advice cited below regarding the prevalence of document fraud in Pakistan, and as the Tribunal cannot know the provenance of this letter, the Tribunal has given this letter no weight.

   Claimed fatwa

   33.In his written statement [the applicant] stated that a fatwa was issued against him sometime in November or December 2012 by an Islamic Extremist Group (Taliban).  He indicated that this followed an incident [in] September 2012 when he was the victim of a robbery in the street by two ‘mobile snatchers’ who got his wallet containing his CNIC, which enabled them to know where he lived, and also took a copy of a church magazine he was carrying which enabled them to identify that he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He claims the snatchers belong to the same extremist group (the Taliban) who were tracking and harassing him when he worked at [Company 1].  He claims that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who believe there is a living prophet who will lead and guide them in these latter days, he is seen to oppose the teaching that the ‘Prophet Muhammad was the last prophet to this world’.  [The applicant] claims that as a consequence of this fatwa being issued and distributed to all the mosques in the area where his family were residing, a group of Muslim young men came to his family home [in] December 2012 (when he was in Islamabad), firing shots and demanding that he come out.  He claims that despite shots being fired police closed the case stating it was just a little fight due to a misunderstanding, and his family were forced to move from their home for their safety a few days after this incident.

   [7] See folio 70 of Departmental file [number].

8. [The applicant] submitted four documents (and English translations) in relation to these claimed incidents: a police report regarding the claimed robbery [in] September 2012; an undated ‘religious ruling’ from [Mr F] of [University 1] in Karachi; an extract from the ‘Daily diary of [a] Police Station’ dated [in] December 2012’; and property lease agreements dated 18 December 2012, 7 April 2013 and 10 December 2013.

9. The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that in considering the supporting documents he has submitted the Tribunal needs to take into account advice from DFAT indicating that document fraud is widespread in Pakistan for forms of documentation not issued by a competent central authority such as the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), and that it is relatively easy to obtain fraudulently obtained genuine documents which are common in Pakistan and preferred over counterfeit documents as they are difficult to detect.  DFAT advises that FIRs are relatively simple to counterfeit, there are reports of police accepting bribes to verify fraudulent FIRs, and indicates that it does not consider the existence of an FIR constitutes evidence that the events described in the FIR actually occurred.  DFAT also notes that fraudulently altered or counterfeit school reports, birth certificates, death certificates, medical records, bank records and other documents are common.[8]

   [8] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 20 February 2019, sections 5.70-5.76.

10. The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that while this advice does not mean that all documents in Pakistan are fraudulent or that the documents he submitted are necessarily fraudulent it does mean that the Tribunal needs to consider very carefully what weight it gives to supporting documents because they may be fraudulent.  [The applicant] replied that the DFAT advice is correct but said he had sworn on oath that everything he has provided is true and the documents can be verified with the police.  As put to [the applicant] at the hearing, the Tribunal considers that the DFAT advice indicates that FIRs cannot be verified with police because police may have been bribed to produce/verify a non-genuine FIR.  [The applicant] agreed this is true but said the non-genuine FIR then would not appear in official records.  The Tribunal does not accept (on the basis of the DFAT advice) that this is necessarily the case and for that reason has not attempted to verify the documents provided by [the applicant].

11. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he considered the snatch robbery was committed by Taliban members rather than just a random street crime, given he stated such crimes were common in Karachi.  He said they looked like two ordinary boys so at the time he did not know they were Taliban.  He indicated that he came to realise they were Taliban after the fatwa was issued.  He said they got his address (which is listed in the fatwa) from his CNIC which was in his wallet.  He said they got the church magazine he was carrying because the person on the back of the motorcycle pulled a gun on him and he was asked to hand over everything he had.

12. The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that he has stated that the fatwa was issued by the Taliban but there is nothing on the document he provided to indicate this is the case and there is no date on it.  He commented that ‘they’ are all affiliated with the Taliban and are all banned.  The Tribunal put to him that the document states it was issued by a person from [University 1] in Karachi and queried [the applicant] that if this was a banned affiliate organisation of the Taliban wouldn’t it have been closed down.

13. The Tribunal also queried [the applicant] that the English translation of the excerpt from the police daily diary [in] December 2012 he had provided made no mention of shots having been fired, contrary to his written statement.  [The applicant] asked to look at the Urdu document and commented that the first line mentions that police responded to a call from his father reporting firing.  The Tribunal commented that the English translation provided indicates that his father and the other party both signed indicating that they did not wish to initiate any kind of legal proceedings.  [The applicant] did not comment on why his father would have signed if he feared for his safety.

14. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] whether there were three separate tenancy agreements included among the supporting documents.  He replied ‘yes’ and said his family left the house which they owned and moved to a rented property, and kept moving.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why they had to move three times.  He replied that he doesn’t know as he is here.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that he was in Pakistan at the time of the three lease agreements.  He said he does not know but indicated that his father’s background is with the [defence force] and he decided to move.  He commented that his mother’s health was also poor at that time.  The Tribunal found [the applicant]’s comments regarding the leases to be vague and unconvincing.

15. The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he decided to return to Karachi in May 2013 given he was safe in Islamabad, his Australian Prospective Marriage visa was being processed and given his claim that there was a fatwa against him and his life was at risk in Karachi.  [The applicant] replied that he was in a really bad financial position, he was relying on the help of his friends who were single and he did not want to be a burden to them, and he did not know how long the visa processing would take.  He said he thought if he went to Karachi he could buy his ticket, pay some bills and help his mother.  He said he did not stay with his family and did not see them often and stayed late at the office.  The Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing.  As put to [the applicant], it is difficult to understand why he would have returned to Karachi in mid-May 2013, where he claimed his life was at risk, in circumstances where he was safe in Islamabad, was being supported by friends, and was awaiting the grant of a visa which would enable him to travel to Australia, and which at the time he thought would be processed sooner (3-6 months from the time of application on 19 April 2013) rather than the 12 months it actually took (the visa was granted in April 2014).

16. The Tribunal also asked [the applicant] what he meant by the comment in his supporting statement that he came to know that the Taliban tracked him with his picture in Lahore and Islamabad.  [The applicant] said he did not experience anything in person while he was in Lahore or Islamabad but when he started with [Company 2] in Karachi his friends in Islamabad told him that people came looking for him and had his photo.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he did not say this in his statement.  He indicated he thought he had.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] if the Taliban had tracked him in Lahore and Islamabad why it took them another year [until] May 2014 to find him.  The Tribunal also commented that the way he claims they found him seems implausible - that two Taliban members would have recognised him from his photo in a random encounter on the street in a mega-city like Karachi.  He replied that he does not know how their network works and how they get their information.  He said even though Karachi is a big city the crime rate is really high, commenting that he does not know a single person there who has not been a victim of mobile snatchers on the street.  He added that he did not know how they recognised him and said that when he was in the office he was very careful.  He commented that when he found out he had got the visa to Australia he had to go and do some shopping, indicating that made him more vulnerable.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that it could accept that the incident was an example of random street crime but he is claiming they were Taliban members who recognised him and then tried to kill him.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that if they were Taliban members who had been tracking him and recognised him in the street the Tribunal would expect that they would have been carrying guns and/or knives and would have shot at him or stabbed him rather than trying to beat and choke him to death.

17. The Tribunal found [the applicant]’s account of these claimed incidents to be unconvincing and, given the DFAT advice regarding the prevalence of document fraud in Pakistan, and the matters discussed below regarding [the applicant]’s movements from 2012-2014, gives the supporting documents provided by [the applicant] no weight.  The Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] may have been the victim of a street robbery in Karachi on one or more occasions but does not accept that a fatwa was issued against him by the Taliban or an affiliated organisation in November or December 2012; that his parents’ home was attacked [in] December 2012 by young Muslim men responding to the claimed fatwa; that his parents moved house on several occasions [after] December 2012 due to fears for their safety because a fatwa had been issued against him; that Taliban members came looking for him in Lahore and Islamabad after he started with [Company 2] in Karachi; or that he was attacked in the street at the busy [shopping site] in Karachi [in] May 2014 by two unarmed Taliban members on a motorbike who happened to recognise him from his photograph.  In considering this matter that Tribunal notes that [the applicant] submitted a letter purportedly from [a] Police Station to the ‘MEDICO LEGAL SECTION’ stating that he was admitted to [a medical centre] after being injured in a fight and seeking advice regarding treatment given to him.  A report from the Accident & Emergency Department of the [medical centre] states that [the applicant] was admitted with a history of fighting and pain in the chest at 8:30 pm [in] May 2014 and found to have a history of ‘Assault as alleged’ and to have suffered a contusion on the left side of his neck and a contusion on the right side of his chest.  The only treatment appears to be the prescription of Nuberol forte (a skeletal muscle relaxant).[9]  Even if these documents are accepted as genuine (which they may not be, given the country information regarding the prevalence of document fraud in Pakistan discussed above) there is nothing in these reports, or any other material submitted by [the applicant] in relation to this claimed incident, to indicate or suggest that he sustained serious injuries in this incident or that the claimed incident was an attempt by two Taliban members to kill [the applicant].  The Tribunal considers that if this claimed incident occurred, it was the consequence of an attempted street robbery.  The Tribunal finds it implausible that two Taliban members riding on a motorbike in that area of Karachi coincidentally would have recognised [the applicant] from having seen a picture of him taken from his stolen CNIC 19 months previously and decided to assault him and try to choke him to death in the street, because, luckily for him, they did not have their weapons with them.

    [9] ‘Overview of Nuberol Forte: Uses, Dosage Side Effects and Interactions’, Health Bid, type="1">

18. At the hearing the Tribunal put to [the applicant], in accordance with the requirements of s.424AA of the Act, certain information before the Tribunal that, subject to his responses, would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that information he had submitted with his [Prospective Marriage] visa application in 2013 indicated the following:

    ·That he only had a short period of unemployment (from March 2013 until April 2013 between working for [Company 1] (from October 2010 until 20 March 2013) and [Company 2] (from May 2013 until the time he submitted the Form 80 in support of the Prospective Marriage visa application on 27 November 2013).[10]

    ·That information in the Prospective Marriage visa application, supporting Form 80 and statements/letters from himself and his friend [Mr G] indicate that he was living in Karachi not Islamabad, and travelled to Islamabad with his friend [Mr G] in March 2013 to meet with [Ms D].[11]

    ·That he appears to have been residing in his old family home in Karachi the address of which was given as his address and mail contact point for his Prospective Marriage visa application and given as the residential address for himself and all his family members in the Form 80.[12]

    [10] See folios 34-43 of Departmental file [number].

    [11] See folios 4-23, 34-43, 60-62 and 78-79 of Departmental file [number].

    [12] See folios 4-23 and 34-43 of Departmental file [number].

19. The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that the information is relevant to the Tribunal’s decision because it is inconsistent with information in his Protection visa application and which he had given at the hearing regarding his employment history, whether he was living in Islamabad or Karachi and where he and his family were living in Karachi.  The Tribunal indicated that this may cause the Tribunal to doubt the truthfulness of key aspects of his claims and his overall credibility.  [The applicant] indicated that he understood the information and why the information was relevant to the Tribunal’s decision.  He indicated that he did not require more time to comment on or respond to the information and wished to respond immediately.

20. [The applicant] commented in relation to the address in Karachi ([Address 1]) that they still give that address as their address because it is the property the family owns in Karachi.  He said that while they had rented the property out when his family moved house in December 2012 they use it as their mailing address and his father would get the mail from the tenants.

21. In relation to his employment record he said the only employment record that is correct is the one in his statement included with the Protection visa application.  He commented that at the time he made the Prospective Marriage visa application he was mentally unstable and may have made a mistake.

22. In relation to his written statement in support of the Prospective Marriage visa application and the supporting letter from his friend [Mr G], [the applicant] maintained that he was living in Islamabad at the time.

23. The Tribunal queried [the applicant] that if he was in Islamabad in April 2013 when he lodged the Prospective Marriage visa application why didn’t he give his Islamabad address to the Australian High Commission, which is located in Islamabad, and why his parents did not change their mail address in Karachi rather than rely on tenants to pass on their mail, if they had changed address.  [The applicant] indicated that he and his family only ever gave the address of the home they owned in Karachi as their mail and residential address until that property was sold because they wanted all the mail to be sent to the same place.  The Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing in the context of [the applicant]’s claim that he left Karachi and his parents moved away from their home at [Address 1] because they feared their lives were at risk there.  It seems highly unlikely in such circumstances they would want to maintain a link to that address that might allow terrorists to trace them to their new locations.

24. The Tribunal notes that in his supporting statement included with his Prospective Marriage visa application lodged on 19 April 2013 [the applicant] wrote ‘I’m [the applicant], living in Karachi and have been in a relationship with [Ms D] for last six months…We meet on website the 3^rd October 2012’.  He also indicated that he and his friend [Mr G] made plans for [Ms D]’s visit to Pakistan and chose Islamabad as it is a safe place to meet.  He wrote ‘Me and [Mr G] travel for five days from Karachi to make preparation for her comfort’.  In his supporting letter [Mr G] states that he is writing to support the Prospective Marriage Visa for [the applicant], ‘Resident of [Address 1]’ and comments that he and [the applicant] have been good friends since [the applicant]’s family joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2001 and have served a full time mission for the church together from 2005 until 2007.  He wrote ‘we are both living in Karachi and serving as volunteers in the church on different callings’.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that his statement in support of his Prospective Marriage visa application and the letter of support from [Mr G] are pretty clear in stating that he was living in Karachi at that time, not Islamabad.  [The applicant] said [Mr G] was living in Karachi but maintained that he was living in Islamabad at that time.  He said his mental condition was not very good at that time because the fear was still there.  The Tribunal did not find this explanation convincing.  The Tribunal finds that [the applicant]’s supporting statement and the letter from [Mr G] clearly support the conclusion that [the applicant] was living in Karachi, not Islamabad, in March and April 2013, and was living at [Address 1].  

25. The Tribunal found unconvincing [the applicant]’s explanation of the significant inconsistencies in information submitted with his Prospective Marriage visa application and information contained in his Protection visa application in relation to his employment history and places of residence from April 2012 until he departed Pakistan [in] May 2014.  While exit and entry stamps in [the applicant]’s passport indicate that he departed Pakistan [in] June 2012 and entered [Country 2], returning to Karachi [in] July 2012,[13] the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] did this because he had left his employment at [Company 1] at the end of April 2012 due to fears for his safety in Karachi and was looking for work in [Country 2] as claimed.  The Tribunal considers that there are other possible reasons for him having travelled to [Country 2] at that time, including that he simply went on holiday.  In light of this finding and the Tribunal’s findings above that [the applicant] was living in Karachi in March and April 2013 and not in Islamabad as claimed, and was living in the family home at [Address 1], the Tribunal does not accept [the applicant]’s claim that the only correct employment history for him is the one given in his Protection visa application and that the employment history he had submitted in support of his Prospective Marriage visa application was incorrect because he was mentally unstable at the time and made a mistake.  In light of all the available evidence the Tribunal concludes that the employment history submitted in support of [the applicant]’s Prospective Marriage visa application is correct, and that [the applicant] was working for [Company 1] in Karachi until 20 March 2013 and with [Company 2] in Karachi from May 2013, and did not reside in Islamabad from sometime prior to September 2012 until mid-May 2013 as claimed in the statement in support of his Protection visa application.

    [13] See folios 214-216 of Departmental file [number].

26. Considering the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal concludes that [the applicant] was not targeted for harm by the Taliban or any other Islamic extremists groups or individuals while he was in Pakistan.

27. The Tribunal also discussed with [the applicant] country information drawn from the most recent DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan,[14] and from the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP),[15] indicating that the security situation in Pakistan has improved significantly since he departed Pakistan in May 2014.  This information is summarised as follows:

    [14] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 20 February 2019, sections 2.66-2.72 and 2.75-2.91.

    [15] SATP, Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan 2000-2019 (to 23 June 2019),

    ·The security situation in Pakistan is complex, volatile, and affected by domestic politics, politically motivated violence, ethnic conflicts, sectarian violence, and international disputes with India and Afghanistan.  According to the South Asian Terrorism Portal (SATP), 3684 civilians have died in terrorism-related violence between 2014 and mid-January 2019.  SATP bases its statistics from media reports, so this number may understate the actual number of casualties.

    ·Overall, there was a 29 per cent decline in the number of reported terrorist attacks in 2018 (compared to a 16 per cent decline in 2017), marking a nine-year downward trend. Nevertheless, Pakistan continues to face security threats from insurgent, separatist and sectarian militant groups.

    ·The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), TTP splinter groups, and affiliates of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS or Daesh) conducted up to 171 of the up to 262 attacks reported in 2018 (compared to up to 213 attacks in 2017).  Nationalist groups also carried out up to 80 attacks, killing 96 and injuring 216, in 2018 (compared to 138 in 2017), and there were up to 11 sectarian related terrorist attacks, killing 50 and injuring 45 (compared to 20 in 2017).

    ·While the security situation varies across the country, militant attacks can occur anywhere. Balochistan faced the most significant security challenges in 2018, due to activity by both religious and nationalist non-state actors.  While Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, including the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), reported the highest number of terrorist attacks (125 attacks, killing 196), Balochistan reported the second highest number of attacks (115), but claimed the highest death toll (354). Sindh ranked third (12 attacks, killing 19), Gilgit-Baltistan fourth (5 attacks, killing 5), Punjab ranked fifth (4 attacks, killing 20), and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) ranked last (1 attack, killing 2).  The highest decrease in attacks (compared to 2017) was reported in Punjab (71 per cent decrease), followed by AJK (67 percent), Karachi (62 percent), Sindh excluding Karachi (57 percent), Balochistan (30 per cent), and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (by 19 percent).

    ·ISIL increased its activity in Pakistan in 2017 and 2018, especially in Balochistan and northern Sindh.  While ISIL was responsible for attacks with the largest death tolls, the TTP and associated groups conducted the largest number of attacks in both 2017 and 2018.

    ·The underlying conditions for militancy, including weak executive, judiciary and law enforcement institutions, poor infrastructure and services, extreme religious ideologies and stark sectarian divisions, and lack of economic opportunity continued in 2018, and continue to do so in 2019.  DFAT assesses cycles of violence are likely to continue until these conditions change.  The state's use of Islam to foster Pakistan's national identity complicates counter-radicalisation efforts and undermines the status of non-Muslim groups in the country.  

    ·The Pakistan armed forces have launched several security operations in Pakistan due to terrorism and the volatile security environment.  Operation Zarb-e-Azb commenced in June 2014 and targeted terrorist groups, including the TTP, in North Waziristan (NWA) in the former FATA (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province).  Zarb-e-Azb spread to other parts of the former FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and involved the Rangers, a paramilitary security force, and intelligence operations in Balochistan and Karachi to target terrorist, separatist and criminal groups.

    ·In December 2014, the Army Public School attack in Peshawar in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa led to the National Action Plan (NAP), which, together with Operation Zarb-e-Azb, formed a civil-military effort to combat terrorist, separatist and criminal groups across Pakistan.  The NAP ended Pakistan’s unofficial moratorium on the death penalty, established military courts to try suspected militants, targeted sources of finance for militant organisations, took measures to restrict hate speech, and committed to policy reforms, particularly in the former FATA.  In 2018, the Government announced its second National Security Policy, and the Ministry of Interior is reportedly preparing NAP-2.

    ·Observers credit Operation Zarb-e-Azb, its successor Radd-ul-Fasaad, and the NAP with a significant reduction in the number of violent and terrorism related attacks in Pakistan. In 2018, up to 262 reported terrorist attacks killed 595 people. This is a significant decrease from 2013, when the terrorist death toll included 3,000 civilians and 676 security force personnel.

    ·In February 2017, the military announced Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad to succeed Operation Zarb-e-Azb in response to a series of separate attacks between 13 and 16 February 2017 across Lahore, Quetta, and Sehwan, which killed at least 100 people and left several hundred injured (Jammatul Ahrar’s Ghazni Campaign).  Radd-ul-Fassad expanded the role of the military in counter-terrorism operations in Punjab.  In July 2017, the military launched operation Khyber-IV in the Rajgal Valley, targeting Lashkar-e-Islam, Jammatul Ahrar and the TTP.  Khyber-IV also targeted ISIL connections across the border with Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.  

    ·Government and military operations have disrupted the activities of militant groups and limited their access to former safe havens, and Military courts have tried and convicted individuals with links to terrorist organisations.

    ·Although counter-terrorism operations have succeeded in suppressing terrorism-related violence, societal intolerance and religious extremism appear to have increased, suggesting the underlying causes of violence remain. DFAT assesses, despite a reduction in levels of violence, sporadic large-scale terrorist attacks are likely to continue to occur, against a background of ongoing smaller-scale attacks (albeit at a reduced tempo).  

    ·The frequency of sectarian attacks has reduced annually since the launch of Zarb-e-Azb and the NAP in 2014.

    ·The SATP data indicates that the annual number of fatalities in terrorist violence in Pakistan nationally has reduced from over 11,000 in 2009, over 6000 annually in the period from 2010-2012, then fallen dramatically each year from 5496 in 2014 to 691 in 2018 and 228 in 2019 to-date (up until 23 June 2019).  The region-wise data for 2018 and 2019 (to 23 June 2019) indicate that the major proportion of the fatalities have been in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, with Sindh province recording 42 fatalities in 2018 (6.1 per cent of the total) and 19 fatalities in 2019 (to 23 June 2019) (8.3 per cent of the total) and Punjab province recording 39 fatalities in 2018 (5.6 per cent of the total) and 22 fatalities in 2019 (to 23 June 2019) (9.6 per cent of the total).  SATP data also indicates that there have been no fatalities recorded in NATO related attacks anywhere in Pakistan since 2014, when there were 18 reported incidents (8 in Balochistan, 9 in the FATA and one in Sindh) resulting in 11 fatalities including one fatality in Sindh.

28. [The applicant] commented that he had told the delegate when she interviewed him that the further north they go in Pakistan the stronger the hold of the TTP is.  He added that there is also a fatwa in place against him and that is a form of death penalty as it means anyone can kill him.  He commented that the delegate had said to him that the fatwa was probably only local and that people would forget about it, but the only way he could check whether the fatwa is still in circulation is to return to Pakistan and he believes that if he did that he would put his own life and his family’s life at risk.

29. While stressing that it does not necessarily accept the delegate’s findings one way or another, either accepting or rejecting elements of his claims, and will be considering all matters afresh, the Tribunal commented that the delegate had found that, given his background, it would be reasonable for him to relocate to Lahore, where he indicated he had lived previously, or to the Islamabad/Rawalpindi twin cities, where she considered he would not face a real chance of suffering serious harm.  In relation to relocation generally [the applicant] commented that he couldn’t relocate to Balochistan or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces because there are still military operations going on there.  He said he could not go to Lahore or Islamabad as [Company 1] has people there.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] why he thought that would put him at risk of harm.  He said [Company 1] are under investigation for [specified crimes].  The Tribunal has considered this claim below.

30. In his written statement provided with his Protection visa application in November 2014 [the applicant] commented that recent analysis indicates that the Taliban’s hold on Karachi is continuing to grow and they are stronger than they were in 2012.  He cited attacks on Jinnah Airport, the Pakistan Air Force Base and on CID Inspector Corday Aslam as examples of the TTP’s recent activities in Karachi. The Tribunal finds, however, that the above country information indicates that the security situation in Sindh province, including Karachi, has improved dramatically since 2014, as a consequence of the various military operations and the NAP since that time, which targeted the TTP and other extremists groups, including in Karachi.  As noted above, Operation Zarb-e-Azb, commenced in June 2014, was expanded to other parts of the former FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and also involved the Rangers, a paramilitary security force, and intelligence operations in Karachi to target terrorist, separatist and criminal groups.  The data indicates that Karachi was among the locations recording the highest decrease in terror attacks in 2018 compared to 2017 (62 percent – higher than the 57 per cent decline recorded across Sindh excluding Karachi) and that this is part of a sustained trend of significantly declining fatalities due to terrorist related violence in Pakistan particularly since the commencement of Operation Zarb-e-Azb in mid-2014 and the NAP at the end of 2014.  In light of the Tribunal’s findings above that [the applicant] was not targeted for harm by the TTP or other Islamic extremist groups or individuals because of his work activities and/or his Christian faith, and noting the population of Karachi (reported to be Pakistan’s most populous city with 14.91 million residents in the 2017 census)[16] and Sindh province (47 million people)[17] and the relatively small number of fatalities in Sindh province from terrorist violence in 2018 (42) and 2019 up to 23 June 2019 (19), the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that [the applicant] would suffer persecution involving serious harm due to his Christian faith as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and/or having an imputed anti-Muslim and/or pro-[foreign defence force] political profile as a consequence of his employment with [Company 1] and/or [Company 2], should he return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, including his home area in Sindh state (where two of his brothers continue to reside).

    Claim to fear harm as a Christian

    [16] ‘Ten major cities’ population up by 74 pc’, Pakistan Today, 29 August 2017, DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 20 February 2019, sections 2.7-2.8.

1. [The applicant] has claimed that he suffered discrimination in Pakistan throughout his life because he is a Christian and indicated that he fears blasphemy laws will be misused against him. In his supporting statement he claimed that because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members believe there is a living prophet on earth, he could be targeted under the blasphemy laws. He commented that anyone from his area can launch an FIR against him and accuse him of blasphemy under law 295C or kill him like a Christian couple in a town in Punjab near Lahore who were thrown into a brick kiln where they worked, after being accused of desecrating the Quran. In relation to [the applicant]’s claims to fear harm as a Christian, the Tribunal has considered the following information, drawn from DFAT’s most recent Country Information Report,[18] and discussed with [the applicant] at the hearing:

   [18] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 20 February 2019, sections 3.70, 3.81-3.89 and 3.136-3.143.

   ·Article 20 of the Constitution provides that ‘subject to law, public order, and morality, —(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions’. Article 36 guarantees ‘the legitimate rights and interests of minorities, including their due representation in the Federal and Provincial services’. The Constitution establishes Islam as the state religion (Article 2).

   ·The 2017 national census recorded that 1.6 per cent of the population, an estimated 3.3 million people, identify as Christians. Christian groups in Pakistan have told DFAT this number is inaccurate, and the community is larger.

   ·Most Christians live in Punjab, with sizeable populations in Sindh, Islamabad and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.  Most Christians are descendants of low-caste Hindus who converted during the British era.  While a small number of Christians are relatively prosperous, Christians are the most economically vulnerable group in Pakistan and face significant social prejudice and class discrimination.

   ·In 2018, Christian support group, Open Doors, ranked Pakistan fifth (out of fifty) most difficult country to be a Christian on its World Watch List.  Many Pakistanis refer to Christians as ‘bhangi’ meaning dirty or sweepers.  In 2018, politician Arif Abbasi reportedly referred to Christians as ‘churna’ in a National Assembly debate (meaning low-caste, but also with connotations of cleaning/sanitation work).  Some advertisements for low-status work ask for Christian applicants only.  Many Christians are bonded labourers with little education and thus limited access to legal remedies.  Christians are also disproportionately represented in blasphemy cases.

   ·Pakistan law does not restrict Christians from practising their religion, although some face difficulties in establishing new places of worship.  Sharia law protects Christians as ‘people of the Book’, but these protections are rarely observed in practice.  There are three Christians in the National Assembly, two in the Senate, seven in the Punjab Provincial Assembly and one in the Sindh Assembly.  There are no Christians in the Balochistan or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assemblies.

   ·Militant groups target Christian individuals, churches, residences or other places where Christians congregate.  A suicide bomber attacked a park in Lahore on Easter Sunday in 2016, killing 74 people—including many women and children.  Jamaatul Ahrar claimed responsibility for the attack, and said it deliberately targeted Christians.  Christians tend to live in concentrated areas or enclaves, which mitigates their risk of societal discrimination but increases their vulnerability to violence.

   ·Since 2013, police have provided additional security to major churches during religious services.  This has reduced, but not eliminated, the risk of violence.  Police also provide some protection to Christian enclaves in major cities, to complement the community’s own security arrangements.

   ·Community members claim that police have, on occasion, not responded adequately to attacks on Christians.  In December 2017, ISIL claimed responsibility for a suicide attack on the Bethel Memorial Methodist Church in Quetta in Balochistan province, killing nine worshippers and injuring at least 35.  Four hundred worshippers were attending a service, but Christians claim no police were in the area, which was unusual.  The US Department of State’s 2017 Country Report on Human Rights Practices also reported that police often fail to protect religious minorities, including Christians.

   ·ISIL also claimed responsibility for a second attack against the Christian community on 2 April 2018, in which gunmen killed four members of a Christian family.

   ·DFAT assesses that Christians face a low level of official discrimination and a moderate level of societal discrimination.  DFAT further assesses that Christians face a moderate risk of societal violence and sectarian violence.

   ·Blasphemy and other offences relating to religion are criminalised in Pakistan under Articles 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).  Article 295C outlaws the use of ‘derogatory remarks’ against the Holy Prophet.  Punishment for blasphemy is death.  Under Article 295B, ‘defiling’ a copy of the Quran is punishable by life imprisonment, and under Article 298A, defiling ‘the sacred name of any wife, or members of the family, of the Holy Prophet, or any of the righteous Caliphs’ carries a maximum punishment of three years in prison, which may also be accompanied by a fine.

   ·DFAT assesses implementation of laws against blasphemy, and the potential for communal violence following an accusation of blasphemy disproportionately affect religious minorities, including Christians, in Pakistan.

   ·In 2017, the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) reported an increase in blasphemy-related violence, use of religious rhetoric, incitement of hatred, and discrimination against minority groups.  The HRCP noted the government failed to repeal discriminatory laws.  Local and international observers report increasing misuse of blasphemy laws, and a widening of actions considered chargeable blasphemy offences.

   ·Individuals have used blasphemy laws to settle personal or property disputes.  Following an accusation, police automatically detain the alleged blasphemer—usually in solitary confinement—ostensibly for their own safety.  In 2010, a Christian woman, Ms Asia Bibi, was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death following a dispute with her Muslim neighbours.  In October 2014, the Lahore High Court upheld Ms Bibi’s death sentence, however in October 2018, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted Ms Bibi.

   ·Communal violence also often targets those accused of blasphemy.  In November 2014, a mob burned a Christian couple to death in the brick kiln where they worked as bonded labourers after they were falsely accused of throwing out pages of the Quran with their household rubbish.  In November 2016, a military anti-terror court sentenced five people to death for their murder.

   ·While the majority of cases are brought by Muslims against Muslims, DFAT assesses implementation of laws against blasphemy, and the potential for communal violence following an accusation of blasphemy, disproportionately affect religious minorities in Pakistan.

2. In considering [the applicant]’s claim that as a Christian he had suffered discrimination throughout his life the Tribunal, noting that DFAT assesses that Christians in Pakistan face a low level of official discrimination and a moderate level of societal discrimination, accepts that [the applicant] may have faced some low level societal discrimination in Pakistan.  The Tribunal does not accept, however, that there is anything in [the applicant]’s evidence to indicate or suggest that any discrimination he suffered due to his Christian faith amounted to persecution.  In this context the Tribunal notes that [the applicant]’s application indicates that he was able to complete his schooling in Karachi in [year] after which he completed a six month course in [Discipline 1] followed by a [Qualification 1] at the [University 2], which he completed in [year].  He worked at a [Occupation 3] in 2004-05 then undertook a two-year mission, including in Pakistan, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from December 2005 until December 2007, before commencing employment with [Company 1] in January 2008, and subsequently worked for [Company 2].  [The applicant] also indicated that his father had a long career with the Pakistan [defence force], had also worked in a [club] for [specified patrons], and owned his own home in Karachi.  [The applicant] has not advanced any evidence to indicate or suggest that his family members suffered discrimination amounting to persecution due to their Christian religion or as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

3. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal has not accepted that [the applicant] left his employment with [Company 1] at the end of April 2012 because he was threatened he would be killed because he is a Christian and because he was working to support [foreign defence forces] in [Country 1], or that a fatwa was issued against him sometime in November or December 2012.  In relation to the claimed fatwa and [the applicant]’s concerns that he might be targeted under anti-blasphemy laws because the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are considered blasphemous by those of the Islamic faith, the Tribunal notes that no charges were ever brought against him under Articles 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code while he was in Pakistan and when he claims he was being targeted by Islamic extremists because of his faith and his employment activities, further supporting the Tribunal’s finding that a fatwa was not issued against him, inter alia, alleging that he had in his possession church literature which opposes that the Prophet Muhammad was the last prophet.

4. The Tribunal notes the DFAT advice regarding the high profile cases of Christian woman Asia Bibi and the case referred to by [the applicant] in his statement where a mob burned a Christian couple to death in a brick kiln where they worked as bonded labourers after they were falsely accused of blasphemy.  The Tribunal notes DFAT’s assessment that the implementation of blasphemy laws disproportionately affects members of religious minorities, including Christians, in Pakistan.  Noting also the size of the Christian community (over 3 million in a total population of 207 million) and that [the applicant]’s background is quite different to DFAT’s description of many Christians as being bonded labourers with little education and therefore limited access to legal remedies, and quite different to the two high profile cases cited by DFAT, the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] faces a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm in Pakistan as a consequences of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws or community misuse of anti-blasphemy sentiment to promote violence against him.

5. The Tribunal also notes that DFAT has assessed that Christians in Pakistan face a moderate risk of societal violence and sectarian violence.  The Tribunal considers that this assessment reflects DFAT’s finding that while a small number of Christians are relatively prosperous, Christians are the most economically vulnerable group in Pakistan who face significant social prejudice and class discrimination, and that many Christians are bonded labourers with little education.  The Tribunal considers that the available evidence indicates [the applicant] and his family are among those Christians in Pakistan who are relatively prosperous.  The Tribunal does not consider that the evidence indicates or suggests that [the applicant] would face a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm due to his Christian faith should he return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.  In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal has also noted that [the applicant] indicated that he is no longer active within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and, while he sometimes attends Catholic services or a Pakistani Catholic fellowship group, he is not really active in any church currently.  While the Tribunal accepts that he may attend church services in Pakistan if he were to return there, the Tribunal considers that, on his evidence, it is unlikely he would be engaged in missionary activities or activities that might give him a higher profile as a Christian in the future.  While the Tribunal notes that there have been some mass-casualty attacks on churches and places where Christians congregate in Pakistan, given the country information regarding the provision of additional security to major churches during religious services, the size of the Christian community in Pakistan and the relatively small number of fatalities in terrorist violence in Sindh and Punjab provinces (which together account for three quarters of the population of Pakistan – 157 million people) in the last few years, the Tribunal considers the chance that [the applicant] would suffer serious harm as a consequence of being caught up in an incident targeting the wider Christian community is remote rather than a real chance.

   Claim to fear harm from ISIS

6. [The applicant] has also commented that news reporting indicates ISIS has started getting its roots in Pakistan and he fears they might also target him.  The Tribunal accepts that the country information indicates that ISIS (or ISIL or Daesh) is active in Pakistan and increased its activity in 2017 and 2018, especially in Balochistan and northern Sindh.  DFAT comments that while ISIL was responsible for attacks with the largest death tolls, the TTP and associated groups conducted the largest number of attacks in both 2017 and 2018.

7. Considering the trend in terrorist violence in Pakistan, which is of an overall significant and sustained decline in fatalities for the last nine years since 2009, the Tribunal finds that while ISIS is another group involved in terrorist violence in Pakistan, its presence does not increase the risk of harm that [the applicant] faces, which the Tribunal assesses is remote and does not amount to a real chance of persecution involving serious harm on account of his Christian religion and/or being a non-Muslim and/or being imputed with a pro-[foreign defence forces] political opinion due to his work activities.

   Claim to fear harm from former owners of [Company 1]

8. [The applicant] has also claimed to fear that if he returns to Pakistan he will be harmed by the owners of [Company 1] or their agents because the company is under investigation for [specified crimes].  When asked at the hearing why he thought he might be at risk due to any investigation into the activities of [Company 1], [the applicant] said [specified goods] had gone missing and investigating authorities had seized [assets] of [Company 1] as part of an investigation into whether people within the company had been involved in the loss of the [goods].  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] whether he was involved in any fraudulent or criminal activity when he was working for [Company 1].  He indicated he was not.  He said the management of [Company 1] want to clear every possibility and can ‘make him silent’ to stop him giving evidence against them.  He provided the Tribunal with a copy of a map indicating the routes used by [Company 1] to [undertake its work] and indicating where [Company 1] have offices,[19] commenting that because of the presence of [Company 1] staff in Karachi, Hyderabad, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi and Peshawar, he cannot move to any of these cities or nearby cities such as Islamabad (45 minutes from Islamabad) and Lahore.   

   [19] See folios 55-56 of the Tribunal file.

9. The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that unless he himself was involved in criminal activity or covering up criminal activity the Tribunal could not see why [Company 1] would be interested in him, commenting that his evidence indicating the investigating authorities had seized the company’s [assets] would mean they would have access to all relevant [records] and emails already.  [The applicant] reiterated that he had not been involved in any criminal activity or cover up but commented that [Mr E], the previous [Position 1] of [Company 1] had quit and the owners had opened three new companies and were still engaged in the same work.  The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that if the former owners of [Company 1] were able to open new businesses doing the same kind of work it did not appear that they were too concerned about the investigation into the missing [goods].  The Tribunal found [the applicant]’s claim that he might be harmed by people associated with [Company 1] because they would want to silence him because he worked for the company during a period where [goods] went missing to be entirely speculative and unsupported by any evidence indicating or suggesting that he is or would be of interest to people associated with [Company 1] should he return to Pakistan.

   Claim to be mentally disturbed

10. When asked at the hearing if there were any other matters that he wished to raise [the applicant] commented that he has had the threat of being persecuted or killed hanging over him since 2012 and is mentally disturbed as a consequence.  He said he is worried that one day he may have to return to Pakistan and may be killed on the street there.  He said the last seven years had been a really hard time for him as he had lost his family, his mother had passed away and he had lost his peace.  He said he did not want his daughter, who will be [age] next month, to have to experience one per cent of what he had gone through and is looking for mental relief.  The Tribunal asked [the applicant] if he is taking any medication currently or is seeing a counsellor.  He indicated he was not.  As the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] received a death threat in March 2012 or was forced to leave his employment at the end of April 2012 and relocate to Lahore and then Islamabad, or that a fatwa was issued against him in November or December 2012, or that his family home was attacked in December 2012 because of a fatwa having been issued against him, or that [the applicant] was attacked by two Taliban members in Karachi in May 2014, the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] is mentally disturbed because his life was at risk in Pakistan.  The Tribunal accepts that the death of his mother and separation from his family in Pakistan may be upsetting for [the applicant] and that he would prefer that his daughter who was born in Australia would be able to remain in Australia.  However, noting its findings above regarding [the applicant]’s claims to fear persecution in Pakistan, and that [the applicant] is not taking any medication or seeing a counsellor in Australia, the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] is suffering from a mental health condition. 

    Cumulative consideration

11. It has been asserted that [the applicant] will face a real chance of persecution from the TTP and/or other Islamic extremist groups, including ISIS, and/or anti-Christian/Islamic extremist individuals because of his Christian religion, work for [Company 1] and [Company 2] in support of [foreign defence forces] in [Country 1] and/or imputed pro-[foreign defence forces] political opinion; and from persons affiliated with [Company 1] because of his actual and/or suspected knowledge of their operations including in relation to the [specified crimes].  In this context the Tribunal has also considered [the applicant]’s claims cumulatively and, having regard to the findings of fact detailed above, finds that, considered cumulatively, [the applicant]’s circumstances as a Christian member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who worked for [Company 1] and [Company 2], including in relation to [specified work activities] and return, in the period from 2008 until he departed Pakistan in May 2014, do not result in him facing a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm from the Taliban and/or other Islamic extremist groups including ISIS and/or their supporters, and/or anti-Christian/Islamic extremist individuals; and/or people associated with [Company 1], should he return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection

1. Having concluded that [the applicant] does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. 

2. In considering whether there is a real risk that [the applicant] will suffer significant harm, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Pakistan, the Tribunal has noted that in MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in relation to the ‘refugee’ criterion.[20]

   [20] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297] and Flick J at [342].

3. [The applicant] has not submitted additional claims that he fears harm to those considered above under the refugee criterion.  Given the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] faces a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Pakistan, the Tribunal, having regard to the findings of fact set out above and [the applicant]’s claims individually and cumulatively, also finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in the form of being arbitrarily deprived of his life; having the death penalty carried out on him; being subjected to torture; being subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment; and/or being subjected to degrading treatment or punishment by the TTP, ISIS or other Islamic extremist groups or their associates, anti-Christian/Islamic extremist individuals, owners or former owners or affiliates of [Company 1]; Pakistani authorities (including the police, armed or security forces); or anyone else, should he be returned to Pakistan.

   Conclusions

4. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that [the applicant] is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore he does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

5. Having concluded that [the applicant] does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that [the applicant] is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

6. There is no suggestion that [the applicant] satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

   DECISION

7. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

   Paul Windsor

   
   

   Member

   
   ATTACHMENT A

     Relevant law

8. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

   Refugee criterion

9. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

10. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

    owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

11. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

12. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

13. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

14. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

15. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

16. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

17. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

18. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

19. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

20. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

21. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

    Section 499 Ministerial Direction

22. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (now the Department of Home Affairs) (the Department) - PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    
    

Fatalities in Pakistan Region Wise: 2018,
Fatalities in Pakistan Region Wise: 2019 (to 23 June 2019), related attacks in Pakistan 20018-2018,

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

• Immigration

• Administrative Law

• Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

• Judicial Review

• Jurisdiction

• Procedural Fairness

• Statutory Construction

• Standing

• Natural Justice

AI Chat Citations

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

---

Citations

1713697 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6580

---

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

0

Plaintiff M47/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] HCA 17

Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198

MIMA v Rajalingam [1999] FCA 179

See 2 more citations

Return