1725081 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Ithna-Ashari Shia Muslim, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm if returned to Pakistan. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's past involvement with an unregistered Shia volunteer security scout group, which provided security for Shia processions and congregations in Karachi, placed him at real risk of targeted harm from Sunni extremists. The applicant contended that this membership, coupled with his religious identity, made him a target for kidnapping and killing, necessitating his relocation from Karachi to Islamabad and ultimately his departure to Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) for complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The applicant confirmed his written claims and his membership in the unnamed Shia scout group, describing its activities as providing security and collecting data for charitable purposes. He stated the group was unregistered and operated on a small scale, with its members motivated by a desire to assist their community and avoid extremists. The Tribunal noted the absence of formal documentation for the group and questioned the lack of a name for such an organisation, given country information indicating the existence of named Shia scout groups. The applicant also confirmed his return to Pakistan in 2014, during which he was attacked, leading to his subsequent application for protection upon returning to Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958*. The decision implies that the applicant's claims regarding his membership in the scout group and the associated fear of harm were not sufficiently substantiated to meet the threshold for a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.