1724687 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution from the Muslim League – Noon (ML-N) group in Pakistan due to his support for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) political party. The applicant alleged that he was targeted for his political activities, including campaigning for a PTI candidate, and that his leg was broken as a result, forcing him to leave Pakistan.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically political opinion, as required by section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing the applicant's credibility and the objective reasonableness of his fear, considering the evidence presented and relevant country information. The court also implicitly considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The court found significant credibility concerns with the applicant's evidence. These concerns arose from inconsistencies in his account, particularly regarding the identity of the PTI candidate he supported and the electoral district in which he campaigned. The applicant's initial application was also very brief, and he failed to mention key details, such as the breaking of his leg, until later in the AAT hearing. The court noted that the applicant's claims about the ML-N group and their motivation were vague, and he admitted he did not know the individuals involved, despite claiming they all knew him. Furthermore, the applicant's assertion that the ML-N candidate was the PTI candidate for the relevant election demonstrated a lack of understanding or a deliberate misrepresentation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The court concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act due to the lack of credibility in his claims and the inconsistencies in his evidence. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of a protection visa.