1727372 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a family from Pakistan. The applicants, who are Sunni Muslims, claimed they feared harm from the wife's brother, who had converted to Shiism and was supported by the Shia community. They alleged threats of violence and the cessation of financial support due to their refusal to convert to Shia Islam. The applicants also raised concerns about the health conditions of the husband and one of the children.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or whether they were owed complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to assess the credibility of the threats made by the brother, the capacity of the Pakistani authorities to provide protection, and the possibility of internal relocation within Pakistan. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the children, who were born in Australia, were members of the same family unit as a person owed protection.

The Tribunal found that while the wife's brother had converted to Shiism and made threats, and that the family may have exerted pressure to convert, it was not satisfied that anyone other than the brother had threatened harm. The delegate had accepted the wife's subjective fear of serious harm for religious reasons but was not satisfied that the fear was well-founded, noting the lack of evidence of forcible conversion by Shias, the absence of a clearly identified militant group, and the continued safety of the husband's family in Pakistan. The delegate also found that relocation to a major Pakistani city was a reasonable option and that state protection would likely be available. Consequently, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicants were owed complementary protection, as there was no real risk of significant harm.

However, the Tribunal was satisfied that the husband and two of the children were members of the same family unit as a person owed protection. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration, directing that the first applicant satisfy section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958*, that the second, fourth, and fifth applicants satisfy section 36(2)(c)(i) as members of the same family unit as the first applicant, and that the third applicant was not owed protection as he was not a non-citizen in Australia.