1725841 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a permanent protection visa by a Pakistani national. The applicant claimed to be a Shi'a Muslim of Punjabi ethnicity who had experienced discrimination and violence in his home province of Punjab. He alleged that his family had faced religious persecution, that he himself had been subjected to harassment and threats due to his religious beliefs and affiliation with a Shi'a organisation, and that a friend had been killed in an attack targeting him. The applicant contended that he could not relocate within Pakistan due to a lack of support networks and the general unacceptability of his ethnic and religious background elsewhere. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention reason, whether he would suffer a real risk of significant harm in his home area of Punjab Province, and whether it was reasonable and practicable for him to relocate to another part of Pakistan. The Tribunal was required to consider these issues in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments.

The Tribunal reasoned that for a real risk of significant harm to be established, it must not be a risk faced by the population generally, but rather one faced by the applicant personally. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the provisions of section 36(2B) of the Act, which stipulate that there is not taken to be a real risk of significant harm if it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where such a risk would not exist, or if the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of past persecution and threats, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed, implying that the criteria for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, or the reasonableness of internal relocation, were not met on the facts presented.