1716786 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a Pakistani national. The applicant claimed to have been a member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) during his youth and alleged he had been subjected to two violent incidents in Pakistan in 2010 and 2011, which he believed placed him at risk of future harm. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Pakistan.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's past membership and activities with the MQM, coupled with the alleged past incidents of violence, established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the passage of time, the applicant's reduced involvement with the MQM, and the general security situation in Karachi. Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed claims of ethnic discrimination and whether such discrimination would amount to serious or significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. While accepting that the applicant was involved with the MQM and that two violent incidents occurred in 2010 and 2011, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. This conclusion was based on several factors: the applicant's reduced and discontinued involvement with the MQM since 2010, the passage of time diminishing the likelihood of recognition by potential persecutors, and country information indicating a significant reduction in violence from militant groups and criminal elements in Karachi since 2013. The Tribunal also found that while some ethnic-based discrimination might occur, it did not amount to serious or significant harm. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, nor did he meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).