1718343 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa application. The applicant claimed to have been targeted by extremist groups in Pakistan due to his past activities as a school teacher, social worker, and president of a human rights group. He contended that his activities placed him at risk of harm upon return to Pakistan.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Pakistan, thereby qualifying for a protection visa. This required the court to assess the applicant's credibility, the consistency of his claims and evidence, and the relevance of country information regarding the general security situation in Pakistan and the specific risks faced by individuals with profiles similar to the applicant. The court also considered whether the applicant could reasonably relocate within Pakistan to avoid any identified risks or obtain protection from Pakistani authorities.

The court considered the applicant's evidence, including police reports and a threat letter, in light of country information and the applicant's own account of events. It noted inconsistencies in the applicant's claims, such as delays in leaving Pakistan after alleged attacks and the timing of his visa application. The court also found that the applicant's parents and sisters, who had potentially higher profiles, continued to live in Pakistan without apparent harm. Furthermore, the court took into account country information suggesting a decline in extremist attacks and increased official operations by security forces. The court applied the principles outlined in section 36(2B) of the Act, which provides circumstances where a real risk of significant harm is not taken to be established, including the availability of internal relocation or protection from authorities, or where the risk is faced by the general population.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. The court concluded that the applicant's activities were minor and localised, and that the passage of time, coupled with the lack of harm to his family members with higher profiles, diminished the credibility of his claims. The court also found that the applicant's inconsistent claims and the late provision of reports to the police weakened his case.