1802520 (Refugee)

1802520 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1799 (14 April 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Carina Ford
CASE NUMBER:  1802520
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Denis Dragovic
DATE:14 April 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)that the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Statement made on 14 April 2023 at 8:58am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Pakistan – political opinion – religion – applicant held a leadership role in a NGO – fundraising for Christian – threats from the Taliban – applicant’s association with the deceased politician – applicant was actively supporting Christians – State protection is not available to the applicant – applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution – member of the same family unit – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 423A
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 3 January 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Pakistan, applied for the visas on 11 May 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that they found the claims to be vague and limited in detail and that they were not credible.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 31 January and 3 February 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
Evidence
The first named applicant (“the applicant”) is from [Town 1], a town described by the applicant as being [number]km away from Gujarat in the north-easter part of Pakistan. He is a practicing Sunni Muslim and a father of 3 children. Through to 2003 the applicant was living in [Town 1] while working on a family-owned farm. In 2003 the applicant moved to [City 1 in another country] living there for three years after which, while based out of Pakistan, he travelled widely including to [various countries]. He continued to operate the family farm until 2009 when his family chose to rent 98 acres in Gujurat. Another 25 acres in [Town 1] remained a viable business under his family until 2012 when he claims that he could no longer access it due to a fear of harm.
On [date] December 2014 the applicant was married to his wife who is the second named applicant.
The applicant and the second named applicant have two children who are also applicants on this application. The oldest was born in [year] and the youngest a year later in [year].
I find that all applicants are nationals of Pakistan and as such Pakistan is the country of nationality for the purposes of the Refugee Convention considerations and the receiving country for the purposes of complementary protection.
[Town 1] fatwa
The applicant claims that a religious leader in his home village proclaimed in 2012, by way of a fatwa, that he was a non-Muslim because of his support for the plight of poor Christians in his village. This led to his inability to return to [Town 1]. He described the situation in his home village as being a risk to him because the clerics (maulvi) control the teachings of Islam to the people who can’t read the Koran as it is in Arabic. For this reason, the maulvi can declare people as non-Muslims. He fears that he and everyone associated with him will be killed because of the fatwa.
The applicant explained that his concerns for minorities began after visiting other countries particularly Western European countries where he saw the type of equality they practiced. I put to him that according to his application form his first travel to Europe was in 2014. He corrected this by showing his Schengen visa, but even so, it showed only a single four-day visit in 2005. He said that his experience was so stark that it stayed with him. He felt ashamed to see the attitudes expressed in Pakistan.
When he would come back to Pakistan from abroad, he explained how he noticed the hate and discrimination that Muslims in Pakistan had towards the country’s minorities. He described the discrimination as including getting lower tier jobs, eating separately and not letting them into their homes.
Preceding the fatwa, the applicant explained that the ’propaganda’ against him began in 2009. He claims that it revolved around his efforts to teach people that they all needed to be more caring to minorities and not commit injustices against them. He said that he advocated for their legal rights.
He said that his work began prior to formally joining an NGO in 2012. He claimed that during the initial years people he knew who worked for NGOs would come to him asking for support. When they came seeking assistance, he would ask his relatives not to give zakat to the imams but instead to people who needed help.
I put to him that zakat is an obligation upon all Muslims and that a part of the obligation is that it should be given to Muslims. He said that such an interpretation is biased, and that it should be interpreted as requiring Muslims to take from the money they have and to give it to people in need. He said that whenever people came to him needing financial support, he would help them. To achieve this, he put a quota on agricultural production from his farm which would be given to them, and he would collect money from his circle of friends and relatives to buy food for the poor.
The applicant estimated that among the residents of his town 10% were Christian. He said that they were not treated like citizens, they could not access good jobs, there were inadequate medical facilities, and the educational opportunities were not good. Socially, when you touch them, he said, you are considered dirty. He said that the majority of Christians didn’t have employment and those that did worked to clean the village. He didn’t support the poor among the Muslim community as Muslims get donations from other Muslims through the zakat, whereas he noted Muslims believe that Christians are not appropriate beneficiaries of zakat so that is why he was focusing on them. In summary, he said that they are considered third class citizens.
In 2009 the applicant moved to Islamabad, but kept returning to his hometown every 3 or 4 to 6 months, including to participate in Eid twice a year.
He recalled that in 2012 he was in the market of [Town 1] and a moulvi known to him along with the moulvi’s son and 2-3 other men who were armed confronted him. They were standing across the road and as soon as they saw him the cleric started shouting. He claims that the moulvi ordered the men to teach him a lesson and not let him live. He claimed that they opened fire on him and that one of his cousins who was with him was shot in the leg. The applicant claims that he escaped via a small street.
The applicant said that he knew the moulvi as he was someone who would arrange processions that promote the interests of Jesh-e-Mohammad (JeM), an organisation he described as being blacklisted in Pakistan. This description of JeM is confirmed by country information.[1] He said that the moulvi would speak openly regarding the JeM promoting jihad.
[1] >
Subsequent to that incident the applicant claims that he never returned to his village.
The applicant explained that his family chose to live in Islamabad as the security there was higher than other cities because it is the capital. As to why none of his wider family has been harmed, he said that it is because there is a personal element to the threat of harm.
I noted to the applicant that this claim of a threat from a maulvi was not mentioned in early engagements with the Department nor in submissions that he had assistance in preparing for this Tribunal. I asked why he hadn’t raised it. He explained that his wife was invited to be in the Departmental interview and not him but when he arrived, he was interviewed forcefully and wasn’t prepared. Regarding other opportunities, he said that he hadn’t been asked about it by anyone so how could he have told it before.
He said that he wasn’t well informed about the process, that he didn’t know the definition of protection, that he had been travelling extensively and hadn’t had an intention to claim protection. He acknowledged that maybe it was negligence on his part in what to put in and what to exclude. He said that it was a long application and that he tried his best. When he wrote it he said that he was staying in a hotel and that he couldn’t focus on the minutest details. He only had 15 days on his Australian visa as he didn’t want to stay illegally.
I noted that in his submission to the Tribunal just prior to the hearing he didn’t mention the problems with the moulvi nor any push factor that drove him out of the village. He said that he told his lawyers that he was helping poor people in the village at that time.
I noted that the address the applicant had used in the visitor visa application and on his Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC) continued to be [Town 1] despite his claims of having left for Islamabad. The applicant said that there is no requirement to update the address on the national identity card and that the bureaucratic process is too burdensome to try.
Regarding his continuing use of the home address on his visa application he said that he just continued to use the same address as his registration. While I accept that there are reasons not to update the national identity cards it is of concern that the applicant continued to record his home address as [Town 1] on his visa applications despite being afraid to return to the village and moving to live in Islamabad.
In considering the applicant’s evidence I am concerned by the repeated emergence of new information and the applicant’s repeated reversion to blaming the delegate or his representative for not asking questions that would allow him to provide the evidence. In the original application to the Department when answering the question ‘Why did you leave that country(s)?’ the applicant only identified being a confidant of the former [politician] [Mr A]. Arising from this relationship he mentions receiving threats on the telephone and via handwritten letters. There is no mention of a fatwa against him nor being shot at while in the marketplace in his hometown. I note that chronologically, the passing of [Mr A] was 2010 and the shooting in his village was claimed to be 2012 and yet when submitting his application in 2016, he only mentioned the 2010 incident.
Section 423A of the Act states:
In making a decision on the application, the Tribunal is to draw an inference unfavourable to the credibility of the claim or evidence if the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have a reasonable explanation why the claim was not raised, or the evidence was not presented, before the primary decision was made.
I asked the applicant at the hearing why he had not included this information in his earlier submissions. He responded that it was because the process to apply was rushed, complicated and that he didn’t have time. I have concerns about this answer. Had the applicant completed a section incorrectly due to the question being difficult to understand, or had the applicant omitted it altogether due to the length of the application form, then there may be some basis to accept the applicant’s response. But what has transpired is that the applicant, apparently while in a hotel in Australia, had responded to a question regarding his reason for leaving Pakistan with a clearly articulated answer but omits a substantial series of his subsequent claims.
He did include a First Instance Report (FIR) about the incident in the submissions to the Department. This could be interpreted in two ways, that the event occurred but the applicant simply omitted it in the written statement or alternatively that the FIR was forged and left little impression in his memory when he was preparing the written statement. I have taken the second interpretation for the reason that even with the assistance of a well-regarded legal firm in anticipation of a hearing at the Tribunal the applicant still did not include in his written submission mention of the 2012 event.
Guided by s 423A of the Act and not being satisfied by the explanation given by the applicant I find that the applicant’s claims of a fatwa being proclaimed by a moulvi from his home village and shots being fired from across the street while in a marketplace to not have occurred. I find that the applicant left his hometown for Islamabad for reasons other than any fear of harm.
([Organisation 1])
[Organisation 1] was described as an NGO that supported Christian minorities. The applicant became involved through others he had collaborated with in the past in providing support to people in need. He claimed that most members of the [Organisation 1] had Christian backgrounds and the purpose of the NGO was to help Christians. His initial engagement with [Organisation 1] began in 2011 involving general discussions about re-establishing their operations had been closed since 2010 due to the actions of people they suspected of being Taliban sympathisers.
The applicant’s involvement included [details deleted]. This included approaching the [Official 1] for support and subsequently lodging police reports. When I asked whether he recalled the name of the [Official 1] he claims to have approached he could not, but he produced a photo of him meeting with a man whose image was the same as the photo available online on the [public] page for the [Official 1] at that time. He said that he was able to approach him due to being a part of a politically well-connected family.
The applicant explained that the [Organisation 1] bought a block of land [in] an expensive area of Islamabad to build [a centre]. When he formally joined the [organisation] in 2012, he said that he went to inspect the building which he found to be 80% completed but lacking functional equipment. He said that due to a fear of the Taliban and in particular a local imam who was associated with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) no one wanted to continue to work there. He said that together with the support of the local bishop they were able to lobby the police and ministers to get two police officers as security and then after 2013 there were others operating in shifts to provide security.
From 2012-2015 the applicant claimed to be helping to fundraise to buy equipment and furnish the building while building works continued, but somewhere around the end of 2014 or the start of 2015 the security was withdrawn.
On 28 October 2015 the applicant claimed that some men entered the building by force and stole the sewing machines and computers and assaulted two employees who were recruited to keep watch on the building.
After this incident the applicant claims that he and others from [Organisation 1] formed a group and went to the [Official 1], the [Official 1] referred them to the local police station and directed legal proceedings to begin against certain individuals, but when the police summonsed these people, they started to openly threaten the NGO in front of the police station.
The applicant claimed that because of this a lot of members were scared, so they sought judicial action and filed a petition in the court. These proceedings went on for 5-6 months leading to court ordered action and the Chairman of [Organisation 1], [Mr B] , lodging a First Instance Report (FIR) in March 2016 in response to the 2015 incident. This FIR was provided to the Department and is available to the Tribunal.
In the FIR [Mr C] and [Mr D] are named in association with the theft of materials from the site. At the hearing the applicant described the incident as being related to men who entered the premises by force and stole the sewing machines and computers and assaulted the two employees who were recruited to keep watch on the building.

The applicant said that lodging the FIR led to a lot of pressure on him, including the moulvi that was leading these people announcing that there was no need for him to be alive anymore.
The applicant said that he had heard that in 2019 the building had been demolished.
The applicant stated that he did not do any advocacy for the rights of Christians and minorities. He said that whenever he approached a circle of friends and relatives or if he took them with him, he would explain the issues including that they are the rightful people to receive zakat and (zakat) harta.
An article in [a news site] [was] provided by the applicant to the Department. The article contains information different to that claimed by the applicant. The following passage was read out to the applicant:
[Mr B], Executive Director ([Organisation 1]) said that it was running smoothly, but some people [Mr C], [Mr D] & [a named person] [joined] us for the community service. But they had a bad intention which later revealed. Sadly one of them from the Christian community either was deceived or by his own will turned against us. Subsequently, this group threatened us and captured the institution in 2009. [Mr B] told that he had no choice but the courts. After the years struggle in litigation; [Organisation 1] won the case and taken the charge of the institution in 2015, he added.
I noted that in this passage it clearly states that this alternate group took control of the institution in 2009 and this continued through to 2015. This appears to be in contradiction to the applicant’s claims that included obstaining security for the building in 2012/13. He said that he and the committee continued to have control of the building but the moulvi lodged petitions that the building was built illegally. He said that the court found in their favour including when the moulvi forged documents to obtain control of the building which the court prevented in 2015.
The article mentions the applicant:
We had threats from Taliban split organizations and later they came in through different ways. But we have struggled hard, and our fellow Muslim brother [and] others helped us a lot in acquiring the land from the Taliban group.
Finally, we were able to release the institution from the said group. [He] shared his experience and said that we have been living with Christian community for years, and we have developed good relation and in favor to create better interaction/harmony. Though we still have threats from the Taliban group we believe that victory is ours.
In looking at the [news] site under [a name] I note that he has [a number of] opinion pieces in 2016 for the newspaper. All of the articles are related to minorities and interfaith issues. He also appears as a regular contributor to other papers. I am satisfied that [he] is a legitimate commentator/journalist and that the article was published in a legitimate newspaper.
Based upon documentation provided that details the structure of the [Organisation 1] and independent references to the applicant playing a role with the [Organisation 1] as well as his own evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant held a leadership role in the [Organisation 1].
I am also satisfied that the applicant played the role he claimed, namely that he helped facilitate engagement with the security forces and courts to reclaim control of the building, though I am not satisfied that the applicant lodged the FIR as he had claimed at the hearing as the FIR itself shows that it was lodged by [the] chairman. This discrepancy does not lend weight to any concern over the applicant’s credibility as his role in producing the FIR may have been such that he sees himself as having lodged it or that the nuanced difference between lodging and facilitating the lodgement was lost in translation.
The applicant had also claimed that the threats included him needing to stop fundraising for Christian groups and instead to divert his attention to raising money for jihad. This was also a new claim that did not appear at the Departmental stage. It is of concern that the applicant did not mention this earlier as it formed a key basis upon which he is currently claiming protection considering that the [Organisation 1] building has been demolished and the [Organisation 1] leadership has dispersed. At the hearing he specifically explained that this was the main threat he faced and that it wasn’t for reasons of his interfaith work or any advocacy.
The amounts that the applicant appears to have raised are moderate relative to Pakistan standards. For example, the value of the [Organisation 1] property he estimated as [amount] rupiahs while he raised [amount] a year. It is possible that even small amounts of fundraising for Christian causes can bring adverse attention if couched in the terms that the applicant has, namely that zakat needs to go to non-Muslims and that people should be helping the poor regardless of their religion. In other words, the applicant was arguing against the religious legitimacy of the moulvi’s teachings.
Noting the letters submitted in support of his fundraising and the detail to which he had described his efforts, I accept that the applicant had fundraised in support of Christians in the manner described.
With regards to the Taliban wanting him to cease his fundraising for Christian groups and instead support the jihad, I find that this was conveyed as a part of a threat but not as an invitation to join them.
Threats from the Taliban
The applicant claimed that over a number of years the Taliban were threatening him which led to him moving around to avoid being in one place at a time. He said that he began living this way in 2016. He said that the Taliban initially offered him a role, but they couched it as a threat stating that if he refused to work for them then they would kill him. They told him to stop working for infidels and instead to spend his money for jihad. They said that they are giving him a chance because they needed him but if he refused to work for them then he cannot live. When asked how he knew that they were Taliban he said that although they didn’t say that they are a part of the Taliban, he believed them to be.
I noted to the applicant that he did not mention at the Departmental interview that the Taliban had pursued him to start fundraising for them rather than for poor Christians. He disputed this and claimed that he had mentioned it. The representative who had a transcript of the interview noted that it was mentioned tangentially near the end of the hearing and quoted from the transcript a reference to the threats the applicant had received, ‘I know everything…you help with the Christians against us’. Upon listening to the audio, much of which was drowned out by background noises, I find that it was not mentioned in the same context as the applicant was now claiming, namely that he was being asked to redivert his fundraising efforts to the jihad. The applicant said that the delegate told him to only answer the questions that were asked and as such he didn’t provide further information.
The applicant said that he came to the attention of the Taliban only because of his fundraising and not interfaith dialogue or advocacy. He estimates that between 2005-2009 he raised about [amount] Pakistani each year from himself and family (approximately AU$[amount]). He said that from 2012-2015 he raised double that each year for the [Organisation 1].
The applicant provided a letter from the ‘Chairman [of named church]’ thanking the applicant for the donation of Rs [amount] to the church. In addition, the applicant provided a letter with a letter head of Member of [a] Board, [thanking] the applicant for the financial help he provided to people affected by the Kasoor incident (the Kasoor incident is described further below).
The applicant submitted two threat letters from the Taliban to the Department. They were not translated but when asked about them, he described them including that they were wrapped in an envelope and given to him from under the door just as other house bills are. He said that he received them while in Islamabad. He described the threats as real. I noted at the hearing that neither are mentioned in any of his written statements. He said that he didn’t have information about the protection visa process and so he hadn’t include mention of them.
One letter states, ‘you are bound to be killed…you are bound to be killed…we have told you before and tried to make you aware that you are no longer Muslim and have become Christian…you are going to their churches…you are always with them…we tried to make you aware of it all the time but you are not stopping it. So now we will turn you and your family into hell.’
He couldn’t remember in which year he had received the letters. I ask how he couldn’t remember letters addressed to him, delivered to his home and threatening his family. He said that he has been receiving these threats when he was single, and he didn’t take them seriously. He said that he only began to take them seriously after 2016. He then added that he believes he received them in mid-2015 to mid-2016 but took them seriously in 2016. He said that there was a difference of 15-20 days between receiving them.
I noted to the applicant that in his statutory declaration from January 2023 he did not mention the threat letters. He said that he didn’t understand the protection application process and so he didn’t know what to say and what to include.
The applicant had a visa to travel to Australia in 2014 as well as a Schengen visa for Europe. He chose not to travel to Australia giving the reason as work commitments, but with regards to Europe, he initially said that he did not remember if he travelled there. I noted that information provided to the Tribunal indicated that he had travelled to Europe and asked why he hadn’t applied for protection at that stage. He repeatedly said that he didn’t want to settle anywhere else other than in Pakistan. After I explained that he had been claiming that he had been attacked and had received threats and asked why he would not seek protection while in Europe, he responded that it was only after he received a serious threat in Islamabad that he decided to leave despite facing threats in his home village which led to him moving to Islamabad. The serious threat he referred to, he explained, were threats received by phone around mid-2015 from unidentified numbers that told him to stop working for Christian charities and described what would happen to him if he didn’t.
I asked how he thought unidentified calls over the telephone were more serious than being fired at in [Town 1]. He responded that the group in [Town 1] was a small group but in Islamabad it was the TTP that was threatening him. He said that they are all over Pakistan and that is why he had to take them seriously.
The applicant said that he started receiving these serious threats in 2015 and then following the lodgement of the FIR further threats in 2016. When asked what triggered the threats in 2015, he said that he had received threats since 2012.
I put to him that as the building is now demolished there is no reason for fearing the moulvi anymore. He said that it had moved on from that and instead the issue was whether he would work with them, or else they will kill him.
The applicant claimed in his statement that colleagues in the [Organisation 1] have fled the country. As he had stated earlier that he was no longer in touch, I asked how he knew that they had fled. He said two or three moved away while he was still there and that he remains in contact with one or two who are in [City 1]. All of them were Christians facing threats in Pakistan. At the second hearing he clarified that no one related to the [Organisation 1] experienced serious harm. He said that some had been smacked about which aligned with his earlier claims of the guards being slapped. With regards to the leadership of the [Organisation 1], he said that the they had left the country one to [City 1], one to [Country 1]. He said that they received threats and had to leave the country. I put to him that during the Departmental interview he hadn’t mentioned anything about them leaving the country and that he had said that he was in touch with three to four people. He said that he wasn’t asked about them leaving the country and so he couldn’t provide the answer to the delegate.
2018 Incident
The latest incident upon which the applicant bases his claims of protection occurred in 2018 while he was on a short visit to Pakistan. He claims that the Taliban stopped him while in his car and shot him.
He said that his mother was living with her brother at the time but due to a health concern she was hospitalised. He had travelled to Pakistan to see his mother and was staying with his uncle travelling back and forth to the hospital. On the second day when he was travelling back to his uncle’s place together with his cousin, at around [time] two men on a motorbike overtook them and stopped the bike in front of the car. He said that the person sitting on the back had a pistol and the man sitting on the front took out a gun from his pants. He said that he didn’t know what to do. One of the men then walked up to the car and using his pistol knocked on the window, that man demanded that he lower the window, open the door and step out. He said that he was dragged out. The applicant claims that as he stood in the middle of the road the man started saying that because he had rejected their proposal, they were ordered to kill him but that it wasn’t personal. While this was happening, his cousin stepped out of the car and the attackers started shouting at his cousin telling him not to get out.
The applicant claims that he realised that he had to run when one of the men said that he should start to pray to God as his time had come. The applicant claims that he then pushed one of the men with force and ran off into the agricultural land beside the road. He claims that the two men opened fire. He said that he didn’t realize until later that he had been shot. He believes they fired 20-22 rounds. He feels that the bullets passed nearby. He claims that he kept running for 15-20 minutes in total, which was as much as he could. A little while later he realized he had his phone with him, so he called the police and ambulance. During this time the cousin called and checked whether he was okay. According to the applicant the cousin said that the two men got on the bike and drove off leaving his cousin in the car. The applicant and his cousin then agreed on a nearby place to meet at which point the cousin drove him to a hospital. From the hospital he received a call back from the police. He claims that two police came and took his statement. The officer required them to bring the hospital report to the police station to lodge the statement.
The applicant believes that as his uncle’s village and his village are about 15-20mins drive apart that it was very easy for news to spread that he was back. Women in the village were coming and going to see his mother in the hospital as were relatives and they would have seen him. He said that he isn’t sure who is behind the attack as he had never seen the armed men before.
Regarding the claimed attack from 2018, at the request of the Tribunal the applicant provided a copy of his travel itinerary. The itinerary shows that he had originally booked to travel to Pakistan on the [date] October 2018 arriving to Islamabad on [date] October 2018. He was booked to leave on the [date] November 2018. The applicant had claimed that he had amended his flight to return earlier due to the incident which was claimed to have occurred on the second day of visiting his mother. He had written in his statutory declaration dated 23 January 2023 at [59], ‘Whilst I had planned to remain in Pakistan for a longer duration in order to continue visiting my mother, I knew that my life was in danger and did not feel it were safe for me to take a further risk by remaining in Pakistan to go and submit a report…I received the treatment that I required in order to receive travel clearance at the private hospital, and then arranged to travel back to Australia a soon as possible.’ The applicant’s passport shows an exit stamp from Pakistan dated [date] November 2018. While the language used in his statutory declaration is vague, specifically when referring to staying a longer time, the evidence of an earlier departure gives some weight to the applicant’s claims of the incident occurring.
At the hearing it was noted to the applicant that the doctor’s letter dated 5 November 2018 stated that he had two bullets in his leg. I asked that a letter from the same doctor be provided that added clarity as to the possible timing of the bullets entering the leg based upon the age of the wound.
A second letter was provided as requested which included a statement from the doctor noting, ‘The entry wounds were fresh in nature meaning that it had happened fairly recently.’ The doctor added that he believes that it would be possible for the applicant to run for some time after the bullets lodged in his muscle as they did not fracture his bones.
It is vexing, based on concerns of plausibility, that the applicant has claimed that within a few days of return, having visited his mother for only two days, that people who had wanted to harm him some years earlier managed to hear of his presence, mobilise armed men who were able to follow him to an ambush site. While difficult to believe, it is not implausible that someone did see him and conveyed the message to the TTP in Islamabad who immediately sent armed men to the hospital, and they followed him out before ambushing him on the road. As it is plausible, and the medical evidence supports the claims that the applicant was shot during that period, I am satisfied that the applicant’s narration of how he was attacked is true.
Other evidence
The applicant claimed that he had started his social work in 2005 by volunteering ‘with [a] group.’ At the hearing the applicant said that his involvement with the group began around 2010-2012. The applicant explained that the boss of the [group] was [name]. I put to the applicant that on [his] [social media] profile[2] it states that he founded the [the organisation] in 2013. He said that maybe the group was started before it was registered. I am unconvinced by the applicant’s explanation as the [social media] profile clearly states that the group was founded in that year and not registered in that year. I find that the applicant was involved in activities that engaged with the poor in his community since 2005 but that his involvement with the [group] did not start until some years later. I do not place much weight on questioning the applicant’s credibility based upon this discrepancy for the reason that it is not critical to the claims and could have arisen due to it being an event from nearly two decades ago.
[2] [Source redacted]
I put to the applicant that at the interview he had mentioned that his first incident of relevance occurred in 2009. At the hearing he said that no such thing happened. He said that many incidents occurred such that he couldn’t remember them. He confirmed that no incident occurred at that time. The reference to the 2009 incident at the interview is during the introduction but subsequently neither the applicant nor the delegate return to it.
The applicant claimed to have become close with a [politician] who was gunned down for his advocacy of Christian rights. He wrote in his application that he had the opportunity to ‘meet and develop intimacy with the [Mr A], who was later gunned [down]. The Taliban claimed to have carried out this gruesome act and further warned that they would target the aides of [Mr A] and those working for the welfare of Christians.’ I accept that the applicant had a close relationship with the [politician].

The applicant’s claims of [Mr A] being gunned down were supported by substantial documentation from independent sources showing that he was targeted. At the hearing the reason for the targeting was discussed with information suggesting it was because of his criticism of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws whereas other information was provided that it was for broader reasons including his Christian faith.
I note that the applicant provided a letter of commendation from [Mr A], prior to his assassination, which was a thank you letter for an action that the applicant had taken in Kasoor when he is said to have stood ‘up against the rowdy and enraged religious mob.’ The applicant did not make any claims arising from any such incident. According to country information the Kasoor incident is a 2009 incident in which ‘A mob of some 600 people attacked about a hundred Christian homes in Bahmani’[3] I find that the reference to an incident in 2009 mentioned at the interview is a reference to this incident and that the applicant did participate in it but as he had not made a claim arising from it nor was there one in any earlier submissions or that it arises from the material I do not consider this further.
[3] >
The applicant’s wife gave evidence. She said that he lived with her for 3-4 months after they were married and then he didn’t live at the house. While he was away she lived with her mother-in-law and father-in-law. I asked the applicant to respond to his wife’s evidence regarding his movements. He said that he was not completely out of sight, he would come and go, and that this began in December 2015 and continued into 2016. He said that he intended to stay away from the house and for no one to see him. Instead, he would stay with relatives in Karachi, Lahore and Quetta and with Christian friends in Islamabad.
Considerations
The applicant’s first set of claims solely focused on harm arising from his relationship with [Mr A]. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, [Mr A] was assassinated in 2010. I asked the applicant how he would conceptualise his relationship with someone from 12 years ago leading to him facing harm? He said that people would have been watching [Mr A] and as such would have seen him as he was with him in all the gatherings.
I asked if any of the threats he had received were as a result of his relationship with [Mr A]. He said that you can’t separate the threats from one or another activity. I put to him that the threat from a moulvi in a small village is unlikely to be connected to those who were watching a [politician] 12 years earlier in Islamabad. He acknowledged that he had been threatened by JeM in [Town 1] which were separate the Taliban in Islamabad.
I put to the applicant under s424AA at the hearing country information which states that the driver of the car in which [Mr A] was killed was [spared].[4] I put to the applicant that it seems that the assassins didn’t want to kill everyone working for [Mr A]. I put to him that this makes me question his claim that threats were made against the aides of [Mr A]. He said that he can’t comment on that. He said that when he was attacked, they didn’t harm his cousin but fired at him, an argument which appears to support the view that he is not directly at risk as a result of his association with the [politician].
[4] [Source redacted]
In considering the risk the applicant faces arising from his past association with [Mr A] I note that the applicant was a friend at best or at least an acquaintance of the [politician]. I note that the [politician]’s driver was not killed when the [politician] was assassinated. I also note that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant was subsequently harmed as a result of his association with the [politician] as opposed to other reasons such as his work with the [Organisation 1]. For these reasons I find that the applicant’s association with the deceased [politician] will not lead him to face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
Regarding the applicant’s general engagement with the Christian community, I provided country information to the applicant about a considerable amount of interfaith dialogue that is undertaken including there being a special minister of the Prime Minister whose role it is to promote interfaith dialogue alongside a lot of work at a societal level involving academics and community groups.
I asked the applicant why he thought he was a target with so much interfaith dialogue occurring. He said that he didn’t involve himself in the interfaith discussions and that he didn’t want to be portrayed in the media. Nevertheless, he named Javed Ghamdi as someone who did and had to leave the country. In cross-referencing the name against country information, I accept that Javed Ghamdi did have to leave the country in 2010 due to threats to his life but I note that he is of a different profile having been named one of The World’s Most Influential Muslims.[5] The applicant listed in his protection visa application form other high profile public scholars and commentators who have left Pakistan. The applicant mentioned another journalist who had to leave and was killed in Kenya. But according to the applicant’s own description he has not been involved in advocacy and based on the information available to me he is not of the same profile as those he mentioned.
[5] >
The applicant submitted country information on the security situation in Pakistan referencing attacks in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. I asked how this was relevant to his situation if he lived in Islamabad where there are very few incidents based upon his claim at the hearing that as the capital it had much better security. He said that you can’t assess safety according to regions. He said that the whole country is under the target of terrorism. I put to him that in Islamabad the situation is stable and there aren’t many incidents.[6] He said that you can’t rely on the media for such information. He said that each local mosque is usually linked to one or another militant movement and that the mosques are the backbone of these movements.
[6] >
I put to him that country information describes the risks Christians face as arising from targeted attacks on churches or community or personal disputes.[7] I suggested that while he could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the number of incidents is limited such that the risk of him being harmed would appear remote. He said that his risk arises from their desire for him to work for them, if he doesn’t, regardless of other threats, he will be killed by them.
[7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Pakistan’, January 2022 at [3.47]
I mentioned other articles that reference businessmen being extorted by the Taliban in a manner similar to what he had described and that the Taliban were telling them that their only option was to leave Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and go somewhere safe which suggests that some areas of Pakistan are safe. At the hearing the applicant said Islamabad is safer than other areas but it’s not secure, mentioning the killing of [Mr A] in the centre of Islamabad. He also mentioned the attack upon the headquarters of the army which is in the twin cities of Islamabad-Rawalpindi. The only news reference to such an attack was from 2009.[8]
[8] >
While much of the applicant’s claims of harm arise from the distant past including over a decade ago, the most recent incident occurred in 2018 during a brief visit to Pakistan. During this visit the applicant’s cousin, who was in the car with the applicant, was not harmed and the attackers specifically mentioned the applicant’s refusal to support them as a reason for targeting him. That a group was able to mobilise attackers in such a short period of time is compelling evidence of him being a high value target and as such facing a high level of risk upon return. Having said that, the incident was five years ago and the pressure to support jihad was eight years ago. Is it possible that the applicant would still be of interest such that were he to return people would be mobilised to kill him or is that possibility less than a remote chance?
In considering this question I note that the test is whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future. The reasonably foreseeable future in this case would extend into years and include the applicant resuming life as he had before which includes being committed to contributing to the cause of minorities in Pakistan. In this regard I note that information was provided that indicates he volunteers for minority groups in Australia.
Accepting that the applicant would resume such activities, I find that he would come to the attention of the groups such as the TTP or the JeM. While I question the record keeping ability of such groups and whether they have a central database of targets, it is plausible that individuals would remember him and his activities from the past. His past transgressions in the eyes of the potential persecutors along with his future activities would result in the applicant becoming a target once again as he was in 2018. As such I find that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future for the reason of a combination of political opinion and religion. Political opinion in that the jihadist movement is not simply religious but also Islamist and is pursuing an agenda that finds no place for Christians or those who support Christians whereas the applicant was actively supporting Christians. Religion in that the applicant was vocally advocating for a different interpretation of the obligation to give zakat and as such had raised the ire of religious believers.
I find that the essential and significant reason for the real chance of serious harm is political opinion and religion.
I find that the applicant can not turn to the state for protection as the state is unable to prevent such attacks based upon the ability of the TTP to assassinate political leaders, attack military bases and kill the police as described in the country information provided by the applicant.

100. The applicant is unable to mitigate the real chance of serious harm by relocating as he had previously attempted to relocate, firstly from [Town 1] to Islamabad and then by moving regularly to other places in Pakistan.
101. With regards to the applicant’s ability to modify his behaviour so as to reduce the level of risk, I note that s 5J(3) prevents certain modifications as being reasons to find that a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The applicant has a view on how Pakistan’s society should treat minorities. This view could be ascribed to his religion, political view or alternatively being a matter of conscience. From whichever source his views stem, the Act precludes an expectation of such modification.
102. I have also considered whether the applicant has a right to enter and reside in a third country. There being no evidence before me to suggest that he does, I find that Australia’s protection obligations remain present.
Second named applicant
103. The second named applicant told the Tribunal that she did not fear harm in Pakistan. I asked the question another way, namely whether she would visit her family, she said that it depends upon the circumstances of her children, adding that she wouldn’t go if her husband can’t go.
104. I asked about her knowledge of her husband’s fears. She said that usually men don’t discuss problems with women, so she didn’t know about his problems until they moved to Australia. I asked if she ever felt threatened at her home in Islamabad. She said no. I asked if she felt her family to be threatened. She said no.
105. I find that the second named applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for any reason based upon her own lack of subjective fear and the evidence presented which includes no claims of any harm befalling her throughout the period that she was married to the applicant.
Third and fourth named applicants
106. No claims were made on behalf of the fourth named applicant.
107. A substantial submission dated 10 March 2023 was made in support of oral evidence provided regarding the situation of the third named applicant who was [age] years old at the time of this decision.
108. The third named applicant was described in those submissions as being ‘severely disabled’ having a rare form of genetic mutation disorder which ‘severely limits his mobility and renders him wheelchair bound.’ At the hearing it was evident that the third named applicant was wheelchair bound and was unable to control his movements and speech.
109. The claim that was made is that the third named applicant would be discriminated against for the reasons of his disability.
110. As discussed at the hearing, the issue of whether he would be discriminated against must be considered in the context of still living with the family, as opposed to at some point in time when he grows up. I noted at the hearing that the reasonably foreseeable future is limited and not indefinite and that the social situation of Pakistan and the nature of how people with disabilities are treated cannot be known decades from now. The representative argued in submissions that the third named applicant’s departure from the support and care of able-bodied adult family members can be ‘readily foreseen.’ While it can be readily foreseen, that is not the test. Instead, the test is whether it will occur into the reasonably foreseeable future. It is readily foreseeable that the third named applicant’s parents will pass and he will need alternative care, but it is not known what the surrounding social norms will be or the availability of financial support the government provides to people with disabilities.
111. While considerable country information was provided on the situation of the disabled in Pakistan, considering that the applicant is [age] years old, that the parents have financial means including that the applicant described his family as being upper middle class and very politically connected, is indicative of a situation in which they will be able to continue to provide the necessary support.
112. Considerable evidence was provided regarding the parlous state of the government’s support to people with disabilities. But considering the needs of a child and the context of being a member of a family unit with means, no evidence was provided that would suggest there would be discrimination. Without there being an intention for the essential and significant reason of race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or that there is an intention for reasons of s 36(2)(aa) I find that the third named applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
Conclusion
113. For the reasons given above I am satisfied that the first named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the other applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) or (aa). However, the Tribunal is satisfied that second named applicant is the wife of the first named applicant and that the third and fourth named applicants are his children and as such are of the same family unit as the first named applicant for the purposes of s 36(2)(b)(i). As such, the fate of their application depends on the outcome of the first named applicant’s application. It follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s 36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.
DECISION

115. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i) that the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii) that the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Denis Dragovic
Deputy President

Attachment - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2023] AATA 1799

14 April 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Standing

Statutory Construction