1720939 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Pakistan. The applicant claimed to face threats from extremist and criminal groups due to his father's senior government position, and alleged that his family members, including himself, had been targeted in attacks. He also cited his marriage to a Shia woman without family consent as a contributing factor to the danger he faced, noting that his wife had been killed and he had been injured in an attack. The applicant contended that relocation within Pakistan was not feasible and that state protection was limited.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by the Refugees Convention. Alternatively, if the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia to Pakistan, he would suffer significant harm, thus engaging Australia's complementary protection obligations.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including country information assessments. It found that the applicant's claim on the ground of his mixed marriage was not made out. However, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention, meaning he satisfied the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a).