1720890 (Refugee)

The applicants, a couple and their two children, sought protection visas based on claims of persecution in Pakistan. Applicant A alleged he was at risk due to his role in the management of a company during a strike and subsequent dismissals, his Muhajir ethnicity, his Barelvi Islamic faith, his Shia surname, and imputed anti-Taliban political opinions. Applicant B claimed similar risks due to her association with Applicant A, her Shia surname, her Barelvi religion, and her perceived non-conformity with Islamic norms, particularly regarding dress. The case was heard by Roslyn Smidt.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants faced a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm amounting to persecution in Pakistan for reasons of race (Muhajir ethnicity), religion (Barelvi faith), political opinion (anti-Taliban), or membership of a particular social group. Specifically, the court had to determine if Applicant A's role in company dismissals, his Muhajir background, his Barelvi faith, his Shia surname, or his imputed anti-Taliban views placed him or his family at risk. Additionally, the court considered Applicant B's claims regarding her dress and perceived liberal views, and the potential risks to the children, including abduction and educational disruption.

The court found that Applicant A was not personally of adverse interest to anyone due to his limited involvement in the 2011 dismissals, nor did his Muhajir ethnicity, Barelvi religion, or Shia surname exacerbate any risks. Evidence indicated that while ethnic violence occurred in Karachi, it primarily involved political groups, and the overall violence had declined. The court was not satisfied that the applicants faced a real chance of serious discrimination or harm due to their ethnicity or religion, noting that Barelvis were not generally at risk merely for their faith. Similarly, the court found no real chance of harm due to Applicant A's Shia surname, as he was not Shia and sectarian violence against Shias was low. The court also dismissed claims related to anti-Taliban political views, finding no evidence that the applicants had been involved in such activities or would be targeted by extremist groups. Applicant B's claims regarding her dress and perceived liberal views were also rejected, as evidence suggested middle-class women in urban areas could dress in Western fashion without significant problems, and she had not experienced issues in the past. The court concluded that the children were not at a real risk of serious harm, including abduction or denial of education, as these claims were not supported by credible evidence.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas, finding that none of them faced a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution for any of the reasons outlined in the Refugees Convention, nor a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in the Migration Act. Consequently, the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a Protection visa.