1800968 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Pakistan, sought a protection visa, claiming a fear of harm from the Taliban. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning his alleged past experiences with the Taliban, including a beating and detention, and his subsequent career as a merchant seaman. The matter was heard by Deputy President Denis Dragovic of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he held a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion, assessing if there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Pakistan. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's mental health, evidenced by a report from a counselling organisation, and recent claims of a home invasion.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive overseas travel and returns to Pakistan, during which his family remained unharmed, as a factor in assessing the credibility of his claims. The Tribunal also had regard to country information and guidelines prepared by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. While acknowledging the applicant's reported mental health issues, including anxiety and traumatic stress exacerbated by a recent home invasion, the Tribunal found that these circumstances did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. The Tribunal noted that no claims were made relating to the home invasion incident itself, but it was considered for its insight into the applicant's mental state.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), nor did he meet the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.