1803189 (Refugee)

1803189 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2432 (30 June 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1803189
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Denis Dragovic
DATE:30 June 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 30 June 2023 at 6:23am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection Visa– Pakistan – a non-practicing Muslim – an atheist – lack of desire to seek further knowledge or any sign of a commitment to atheism – limited nature of his atheistic beliefs – applicant is not a practicing atheist – delay in lodging his protection visa application– decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5,36, 65, 411, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
EJC18 & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 3171
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 12 January 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, which I accept, applied for the visa on 15 February 2017.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that they did not accept the applicant’s claims of being an atheist or claims that he was harmed in Pakistan on account of being a non-practicing Muslim, or an atheist.
The applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal on 20 June 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. On the 19 June 2023 the applicant left a message at the Tribunal’s switch board recorded in the Tribunal’s case management system as, “cant attend tomorrow hearing and would like the member to make a decision without his attendance". Following this call the member’s associate spoke with the applicant to confirm that he was asking to postpone the hearing and for the Tribunal to proceed for a decision to be made without attending the hearing. The applicant confirmed that it was the latter. The applicant subsequently emailed the Tribunal informing the Tribunal that he will not be attending the hearing and consenting that the decision be made on the papers.
I am satisfied that the identity of the applicant was adequately confirmed and as such accept that the applicant has provided consent for the decision to be made on the papers.
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 decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
For the reason that the applicant has consented that the decision be made on the papers the Tribunal is limited to the evidence provided by the applicant to the Department and what was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal, which collectively includes:
a.News article from April 14, 2017, ‘Pakistani student accused of blasphemy beaten to death on campus’
b.A one page letter from [a] Provisional Psychologist, regarding the applicant’s mental health
c.Membership letter from the [Organisation 1] showing a joining date of 4 October 2016 with the letter dated 13 February 2017
d.A personal statement titled, ‘Why I became an atheist’
e.Responses to questions in two applications for the visa on forms 866 relating to the reason why he cannot return to Pakistan (the first application was deemed invalid)
f.Delegate’s decision, which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, and includes material from the Departmental interview held with the applicant
Evidence and findings of fact
The applicant first arrived in Australia on [date] October 2007 holding a vocational education sector visa. He briefly departed Australia in 2009 to attend his sister’s wedding and then returned. Following his return, he applied for another student visa which was granted. He subsequently applied for a skilled visa, but the application did not include a skills assessment and as such it was refused. The applicant subsequently applied for a partner visa but three years later the sponsor withdrew her sponsorship, and the application was refused. The applicant appealed but the refusal was affirmed upon review in October 2016. The applicant then applied for a protection visa in November 2016. The application was deemed invalid as it did not include all of the required supporting documents. The applicant reapplied in February 2017. This application was refused by the Minister’s delegate on the 12 January 2018. It is this refusal that is now before the Tribunal.
The applicant’s articulated claims of harm arise from claiming to no longer be a Muslim, and instead seeing himself as an atheist.
The delegate’s decision included a summary of his circumstances and claimed fear of harm drawing upon material from both his application form and the interview, which are transcribed here without alteration:
·He is a Muslim turned atheist who was born in [City 1], Pakistan. As a child he used to read the Quran and pray as his parents and other people did, but he has now lost his faith.
·He came to Australia to study and have a better future and be part of the community.
·When he arrived he had unanswered questions about God. He met people from different faiths to get answers but came to know all religions had the same problem - no one can prove the existence of God/s.
·He found that faith has nothing to do with human behaviour. He believes that religion is a way to control the masses, just to keep them in line and their hearts filled with fear. Throughout history people have been killed over religion.
·Atheists in Pakistan face discrimination, persecution and prejudice. Revealing yourself as an atheist in Pakistan is like having a death wish as you can be subjected to capital punishment.
·In Pakistan there is the constant fear of being killed. Being Pakistani and an atheist is a dangerous combination. Revealing yourself as an atheist in Pakistan is like having a death wish.
·He did not experience harm in Pakistan as he was not sure about being an atheist and didn’t share his views with anyone there.
·He wasn’t harmed so he did not seek help, but if he had revealed his views people would not have helped him.
·There is no point attempting to move to another part of the country as atheists are treated the same everywhere.
The delegate’s decision also included a summary of the evidence provided at the interview, which is transcribed here without alteration:
·When he was young he followed his religion but as he was growing up he started to question it.
·While at university in Islamabad he was attending Friday prayers and festivals because he had to, but he was not praying all the time or reading the Koran.
·People are being watched by Islamists groups in university and in the workplace and will be reported if they appear not to be adhering to their faith.
·When he came to Australia he did not practice his religion at all. He started researching and discussing ideas with others, and about two years ago he realised that he was atheist.
·When his brother arrived in Australia two years ago, he discussed his concerns about the Koran with him, but he has not told him that he has abandoned his religion. He has to see him once a week but he tries to aveid him because he pushes religion.
·His cousin, [name], knows that he was not practising his religion, and while he is in contact with his father and sisters he has not told them that he is an atheist. If he told his father he would be disowned, isolated, would be without resources and would not be able to survive. He would probably commit suicide here in Australia rather than being returned to Pakistan.
·There are many extremists groups in Pakistan and they will not accept people questioning Islam or Mohammad and the government is cracking down on blasphemy.
·It was two years ago when he decided that he was an atheist; there is no proof of God’s existence.
·He did not discuss his concerns and questions with an imam because he would be deemed to be an infidel, a non-believer. There is no freedom to question your religion.
Within the delegate’s decision were extracts and references to country information about atheism in Pakistan, which are transcribed here without footnotes.
·In September 2011, Pakistan Today published an article on a group of Pakistani atheists that belonged to an organisation called Pakistani Atheists and Agnostics (PAA). Commenting on the treatment of atheists by their friends and family, the article refers to the comments by one member of the PAA who claims that initially his family and friends were ‘shocked’ when he told them of his attitude towards religion, but now they have accepted it. The article states that:
The responses are varied. My family was shocked and thinks that I am just confused right now and would eventually come back. However, they are okay with it now. My friends are okay with it as well. They debate with me on different issues but that’s about it’, says Hazrat NaKhuda.
The article refers to the experience of a second atheist, Zaeem Kalm, who also claims that his attitude towards religion was initially treated with shock by his family and friends, and then after that acceptance and at times humour
·An article by The Commentator suggests that Hazrat Nakhuda, the founder of PAA, experienced a similar reaction from his closest friends and family. When asked during an interview with the paper how open he was about his atheism in Pakistan, Nakhuda responded that with his friends he was ‘very open' and that his family was aware of his views regarding religion.
·There are also comments that some atheists have been psychologically and physically abused by their family after announcing their views regarding religion, and therefore most people prefer to go through the motions of faith, because they do not want to be discriminated against.
·Pakistan Today notes that not all atheists are comfortable announcing their attitude towards religion to family and friends. According to one atheist, who goes by the pseudonym of Aek, he remains a ‘closet atheist’ who tells his family and friends that he is a ‘secular Muslim'. He suggests that his family would give him a ‘tough time’ if they discovered that he has ‘quit religion’. Similarly, a second atheist quoted by the paper, called Maliha, claims that her family would be upset if she told them that she was an atheist.
·A report in March 2014 by Tablet about the PAA suggests that most Pakistani atheists are reluctant to announce their attitude towards religion for various reasons including ‘fear of family disapproval and the apprehension of being ostracized from society—and the threat of being charged with blasphemy’.
Syed Ahsan GilanI is the spokesperson for the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance Pakistan, a support network for non-believers in the religious country. AAAP is the first organization of Pakistan for Atheist & Agnostic. The main purpose of this organization is to support people & give them a platform to speak, to share their ideas & thoughts. The most difficult thing for atheists is to speak openly in public. Being a Pakistani & an atheist is such a risky combination. Anyone who speaks & criticizes religion openly can legally be persecuted using blasphemy law, so people have to hide their real identities & names.
·However, no reports were located that refer to atheists being identified and targeted by the State because of their non-adherence to Islam. One report, by The Larrikin Post, was found that claimed individuals rather than the State are more likely to target atheists in Pakistan because the State had more urgent issues to attend to:
...in Pakistan individuals are a bigger persecutor than the State. The State is largely absent and/or incompetent. There is a large chance that you’ll be executed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for being an atheist, but not by Pakistan’s Inter-Services-Intelligence or the Police, because they have bigger to problems at hand such as fighting terrorists, battling India, maximizing their own political clout and extorting money in their spare time.
·There are no specific laws against apostasy in Pakistan, however converts are vulnerable to blasphemy laws or social discrimination. A person who converts to another faith or who renounces Islam in any other way can be targeted for death by a family member under direction of a religious leader.
·In theory, some interpretations of Sharia law state that apostasy is punishable by death, and therefore Sharia courts may apply the death penalty; however this is not believed to occur in practice. In November 2010 Asia Bibi, a Christian, was the first woman in Pakistan’s history to be sentenced to death for blasphemy after an argument with fellow farmhands who refused to drink water she had touched because of her religion. She remains on death row.
·The 2017 DFAT Pakistan Country Information Report notes:
The Penal Code sets out a series of offences relating to religion, including Article 295C which outlaws the use of 'derogatory remarks’ against the Holy Prophet. Punishment for blasphemy is death, life imprisonment, or in some cases, a fine. Under Article 295B, ‘defiling’ a copy of the Quran is punishable by life imprisonment. Religious conversion from Islam, while not illegal, is often seen as blasphemous and can result in either prosecution under blasphemy laws or familial or communal violence (or both). Other provisions define more general crimes relating to insulting any religion, not just Islam. These provisions carry sentences of imprisonment of up to ten years.
While blasphemy laws apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims, DFAT assesses that the laws against blasphemy, and the potential for communal violence following an accusation of blasphemy, disproportionately affect religious minorities in Pakistan.
The applicant’s claims of being an atheist
In the document Why I became an atheist the applicant claims that he lost faith in all religions and not just Islam. He said that he was born and raised in a Muslim family which included reading the Quran and praying but as a result of unanswered questions he came to the realization that faith has nothing to do with human behaviour and that it is a means to control the masses.
The applicant explained what his unanswered questions were including but not limited to that science can’t prove that there is a god, there is no logical argument for the existence of god and there is no comprehensive definition of god.
He labelled the concept of forgiveness in Abrahamic religions as a ‘loophole’ allowing man to enter heaven despite having committed sins. He gave the example:
A religious man can molest and kill an atheist who rejects all religions and gods. This religious man can repent later in his life and worship God. The problem is that the religious man will go to heaven according to Abrahamic theology while the atheist will probably end up in hell for rejecting God.
He questioned the idea that a god can be omnipotent on the basis that you can’t be both awake and asleep, live forever and yet be able to kill oneself or have the ability to be everywhere but being unable to leave a place. To the applicant these inconsistencies suggest that the concept of an omnipotent god is undermined. An example of his logic is:
If God knows everything, then he cannot forget because the moment he forgets, he doesn't know everything. However, if God can't forget, he then doesn't know how to remember or recollect. If he can't recollect, then there is something he doesn't know- he doesn't know how it feels to recollect or remember something
When considering the nature of god the applicant asks rhetorically:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The applicant also grappled with the existence of Adam and Eve. He questions whether they would have had to commit incest to have children and he claimed that it is biologically impossible for 2 people to populate the Earth noting that genetic evidence suggests that humans descended from at least 10,000 people.

The applicant explained his belief as being that, ‘we're all part of a big Electron (Earth), it doesn't punish, it doesn't judge and it has suitable conditions for life to exit.’
He claims that during his time in Australia he hasn’t felt pushed or forced to believe anything that he disagrees with and that he feels safe and free.
Regarding his experiences in Pakistan, he wrote:
But situation in Pakistan is all together different constant fear of getting killed. Imagine living with the constant fear that an angry mob would torture you to death if they found out you are a free thinking person.
That's how many agnostics and atheists live in Pakistan. Being Pakistani and an atheist is undoubtedly a dangerous combination. This does not even begin to make sense until you bring the context into the picture, which is a religious verdict about apostates being punishable by death. So much for 'thinking freely or differently'. This religious ruling is the prime factor that puts the life of Pakistani atheists in danger. In fact 'thinking' is just as big of a sin in Pakistan as thinking differently. You are doomed if you decide to use your so-called god-given mental faculties and engage in critical thinking because thinking in matters of faith is a sin in itself.
Despite the fact that revealing yourself as an atheist in Pakistan is like having a death wish, some are brave enough to publicise their atheism. Yet most atheists living in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have no choice but to live in disguise as Muslims. They are often called 'in-closet atheists' which is not far from reality. The constant dread, dismay and the pressures have taken a significant mental toll on atheists in Pakistan as religion takes hold on the majority of Muslims in the country.
Another significant factor jeopardising the life of atheists living in Pakistan is the Penal code of Pakistan, which has laws decreeing the death penalty for various religious offences. This may or may not come as a surprise to free thinking people all over the world, but the famous 'Blasphemy Law' proposes death penalty for merely defiling the 'sacred' name of Holy Prophet Muhammad. So far many innocent people have fallen prey to the draconian law of blasphemy:
As if blasphemy law wasn't enough, an apostasy bill proposing death penalty for 'apostates' (Muslims who choose to renounce their religion) was proposed by MMA (Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal - coalition of religious and theocratic parties) in 2006 which was later passed on to Standing Committee by the National Assembly of Pakistan.
The crux of the matter is, although Pakistan exercises comparatively less extreme ways to 'punish' people for 'thinking' than other Islamic States, it is still not a safe haven for citizens who have chosen to abandon religion and move towards scientific, moral and ethical ways. Without a secular and liberal heading for Pakistan, people from other faiths and free-thinkers are never going to be safe, and will always be classed as second class citizens, amongst the Islamists
Further information was provided in the applicant’s answers to questions in the Departmental protection visa application form 866. I note that in the delegate’s decision when issues of inconsistency between the two were raised with the applicant he referred to his agent completing the first form 866 without him checking what had been written. I am concerned about this claim as the wording used in the initial form 866 is very similar to his statement. For example, the 2016 form 866 response to question 89, Why did you leave that country(s)? includes the following answer:
I’m a Muslim turned atheist. So, basically this is a story about my attempt in search of the right god(s), and how I lost faith in religion generally, not only Islam I was bom in a small Town in Pakistan to a muslim parents, as I child, I use to live a normal Muslim child, use to go to school, read Quran and pray as my parents and other people use to do.
In my Quest to search for the right god(s), I lost my faith somehow. I had unanswered questions, which in time when I came to Australia; I meet people of all different faith and found an answer that faith has nothing to do with human behavior.
I believe religion is a way to control the masses, just to keep them in line with their hearts filled with fear. Throughout history people have been killed over religion, which is ironic if there was a god(s) there would be peace in time i released it wasn't for me I needed to live the country get a better education search for better life where I can be myself and experience life with out been scared for your life.
The statement, Why I became an atheist, opens with the following:
I'm a Muslim turned atheist. So, basically this is a story about my attempt in search of the right god(s), and how I lost faith in religion generally, not only Islam I was born in a small Town in Pakistan to a muslim parents, as I child , I use to live a normal Muslim child , use to go to school, read Quran and pray as my parents and other people use to do.
In my Quest to search for the right god(s), I lost my faith somehow. I had unanswered questions, which in time when I came to Australia; I meet people of all different faith and found an answer that faith has nothing to do with human behavior.
I believe religion is a way to control the masses, just to keep them in line with their hearts filled with fear. Throughout history people have been killed over religion, which is ironic if there was a god(s) there would be peace.
That these two statements have substantial similarities is suggestive that they come from the same source. The applicant is not disputing that he wrote the document, Why I became an atheist, which suggests that he also had a substantial role in writing or being made to have written the answer to the 2016 form 866 response at question 89.
I note that there are also very strong similarities between the answer given to question 90 in the 2016 form 866 and Why I became an atheist. The entirety of the first main paragraph is exactly the same.
While I note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all of the material on the form is correct before signing it, as he has, it is plausible that due to his limited English language skills he did not pick up that there were additional lines in the form. Without the opportunity to raise these issues with the applicant and there being no other evidence to suggest otherwise, I accept the applicant’s claims that the agent had added the lines is true. For this reason, I do not accept the evidence provided in the form 866 that is different to what is in the Why I became an atheist statement or the 2017 form 866. This includes the following statements:
situation in Pakistan is all together different constant fear of getting killed.
I do fear for my life because I have witnessed non Muslim or non practicing Muslims been killed I am feared for my life.
I have been threated and been assaulted by the radical Islamic groups at school due to my thinking and my belief. I was questioning Islam they were not happy.
In the 2017 application the applicant added thoughts which were not included in the Why I became an atheist statement. This includes claims that atheists face discrimination, persecution, and prejudice. He claims that Pakistan is one of seven countries in the world where atheism can lead to capital punishment. He also references the penal code of Pakistan which had laws, according to the applicant decreeing death penalty for various religious offences.
In his 2017 statement he writes that he didn’t experience harm in Pakistan as he was not sure at that stage of his beliefs.
The applicant added that he lives in a small town near which are a few religious schools and were they to come to know his views he would be at risk.
The applicant claims that he has not shared his questions about his faith with his family members.
He also claims that his parents want him to get married to a Muslim girl. He claims that as all marriages are Islamic marriages it would be impossible for him to be married and in addition no Muslim family would want their daughter to marry an atheist. He believes that to start a family and live a normal life is out of the question for these reasons.
The relevant law
Section 5J(1)(a) identifies religion as a protected attribute:
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;
I acknowledge the proposition first espoused in 2001 by Justice Madgwick that the refugee Convention ground of religion also covers persecution arising from non-belief:
The Convention speaks of a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ... religion ...". In my opinion, if persons are persecuted because they do not hold religious beliefs, that is as much persecution for reasons of religion as if somebody were persecuting them for holding a positive religious belief. The Convention protects people in relation to the subject matter of religious belief. It does not protect believers and leave non-believers to the wolves.[1]
[1] Prashar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 57 (7 February 2001)
To understand the place of non-believers in the scheme of Australia’s protection regime it is necessary to grapple with the question of not only what non-believers believe, but also what action is inherently intertwined with that belief. This is not to test whether atheism meets the definition of a religion, but rather because the nature of the protection regime requires an understanding of how a potential persecutor may identify another person so as to cause them harm.
The Act requires that for Australia’s protection obligations to be triggered there must be a persecutor from whom arises a real chance of serious harm in the case of s 36(2)(a) or a real risk of someone causing significant harm upon a person in the context of s 36(2)(aa). The combination of a persecutor and intentionality requires more than a test of the beliefs of atheists, it requires a test of their actions and whether they are tied to their beliefs such that a potential persecutor would be identify them and have an intention of harming them.
How are atheists obligated to live? What are the obligations imposed upon atheists? For believers in a religion there are traditions such as the Hadith and Sunna, the sayings and life of the Prophet respectively, in Islam. In Christianity there is the Bible, teachings of the Church Fathers and declarations of the Councils. Hindus have narratives that recall the knowledge and wisdom of the gods. These books and traditions explain the faith and give guidance to people of faith as to the manifestation of their faith.
For atheists, it is dependent upon how they see their views. There are groups described as militant atheists, who are actively in opposition to religious belief. Such people would undertake actions arising from their beliefs that would be highly visible. This may come in the form of arguments with religious people through to protests or violent action. There are also atheists who are silent other than having a positive view of the non-existence of a greater being as opposed to an agnostic view. Determining where the applicant falls is relevant to the fact finding role of this Tribunal.
Findings of fact
Before making findings of fact, I note that the applicant provided a letter from [a] Counselling Service. His provisional psychologist wrote:
He presented with issues related to his current legal status in Australia and complex grief relating to his immediate family.
[The applicant] has undergone significant adjustment difficulties since losing work and Medicare privileges approximately one year ago. This has resulted in significant distress and social isolation for him. His ineligibility for low-cost community healthcare and mental health services has also exacerbated his current mental health concerns. Furthermore, his current financial situation has greatly restricted his ability to attend this Service on a regular basis. Therefore, he has been unable to access sufficient mental health support and intervention here, which his chronic presentation requires.
The provisional psychologist does not explain whether this was a singular assessment, or the relationship included some treatment. There is no diagnosis. While I accept that the applicant would have been distressed for a variety of reasons, without a diagnosis I place no weight on what may be divined from this very sparse letter.
The provisional psychologist also notes that the applicant has ‘spoken extensively about his religious beliefs, which strongly conflict with those of his family and extended community in Pakistan. He has expressed genuine concern and fear for his safety and well-being if he were compelled to return to Pakistan’, but I note that it is the role of this Tribunal to make findings of fact. That he has spoken of it to his psychologist is noted but given limited weight as there is little clarity in how the evidence was provided, specifically whether through the course of multiple sessions in the context of treatment or simply in a brief consultation.
With regards to the applicant’s claims of being an atheist, as noted, I need to ascertain the extent of his atheist beliefs and relevantly the type of publicly visible practices the applicant believes atheists need to undertake or how he feels obliged to act, free from fear, were he to return to Pakistan and live his life as an atheist. The applicant noted in his application form under question 90 that revealing yourself as an atheist is like living with a death wish, but does he have an intention or motivation, free from fear, to reveal himself?
In this regard, the only evidence he provided of making his views known outside of his own questioning mind was membership of the group, [Organisation 1]. But I note that it states that his membership began on 4 October 2016 whereas he signed his first protection visa application on the 11 October 2016. Considering that the applicant has been in Australia since 2007 and he has described a drift towards atheism since being in Australia which solidified two years before his visa interview, I find that his joining of this atheist group is contrived and does not reflect a genuine desire to engage with other atheists in discussion or camaraderie.
I now turn to consider the applicant’s explanation of his beliefs. He has outlined a number of questions. My concern is that he has based his claim of being an atheist in large part on not being able to find answers to these questions. Yet, he does not claim that he searched the internet for answers or sought to engage with anyone who may be knowledgeable about Abrahamic religions. He did not claim that he attended any lectures that may answer some of his questions or read any books.
Instead, he claims that he chose not to discuss his concerns with an imam because he believed that he would be deemed an infidel. But I note that he was living in Australia by that time for ten years and there is no evidence to indicate that he had tried to find an imam who would be amendable to such an approach despite there being a diversity of Muslim beliefs in this country.
As such, I am either concerned of the veracity of his claims that he felt under threat in Australia such that he could not approach any imam and discuss his questions, despite there being many imams; or alternatively, were I to accept that he didn’t approach any imam on the assumption he gave, it is concerning that he made no further effort to seek out an imam with whom he could engage with, even anonymously online, on these issues. This weighs heavily when considering the nature of his claimed atheist beliefs.
The applicant’s answers to his questions, it appears, come from people he meets and observes, writing, ‘I meet people of all different faith and found an answer…’. But there is a shallowness in the questions that he claims made him become an atheist, a shallowness that leads to further concerns.
He writes that ‘there is no theory of God’ and yet the Bible, the Quran and the Torah are all theories of God. He writes there is no conclusive logical argument for God. Yet, to mention one widely known example from just one faith easily found through a simple internet search, the Bishop of Canterbury, St Anselm, made an ontological argument for the existence of God in the 11^th century.
His argument against God arising from the claim of omnipotence (which he defines as ‘to have all abilities) is a semantic play in that he claims how can someone be both awake and asleep and yet be omnipotent. There are a multitude of possibilities including that the concept of a god should not be anthropomorphised so that ideas such as sleep or awake are applicable.
This lack of effort to seek out answers or lack of intellectual curiosity, noting that he is a well-educated individual, over issues that he claims will lead him to face a substantial risk of death is deeply troubling.
Alternatively, it can be that a person holds these views without needing to seek out further answers. In other words, one can be a foot soldier and not a leader or thinker for the atheist cause or alternatively one can be described akin to those who follow cults but don’t question what they are being told. But then at least some other sort of commitment would be expected to reflect a deeply held belief albeit lacking intellectual curiosity or understanding.
But in the applicant, we find someone who joined [Organisation 1] a week before he signed his protection application form and nothing else, no evidence of participation in events in the 9 years prior to that, no evidence of social media posts, no witness statements of conversations, nothing. This lack of desire to seek further knowledge or any sign of a commitment to atheism despite claiming to be an atheist is vexing.
The applicant’s long visa history in Australia can be perceived from two angles. On the one hand it appears that it is another stage in the applicant’s attempts to remain in Australia having exhausted his options via various student visas, a partner visa and then this protection visa. On the other hand, it is plausible that the applicant genuinely feared returning to Pakistan throughout his winding visa journey with an eye towards remaining absent from Pakistan by way of another visa. Only upon running out of options to stay away from Pakistan did he apply for a protection visa. While these possibilities on their own don’t lend themselves to a conclusion either way, when taken into consideration alongside the other doubts raised above, his delays in applying for a visa reinforce a view that his claims are not genuine.
When considering the entirety of the applicant’s evidence regarding his claimed atheism and taking into consideration the doubts I have raised above, I find that the applicant is not a practicing atheist. He may have had and continue to have some thoughts that align with atheism, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: ‘Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness.’ But I find that he has only dabbled with the idea of adopting an atheist persona and leaving his faith which he would be associated with were he to live in Pakistan. I find that the applicant has not in the past nor does he into the future have a motivation to, or a reason for, publicly expressing any atheist beliefs. Instead, I find that the applicant saw the few sparks of disbelief he harboured internally as a pathway to progress a visa outcome rather than a genuine journey, regardless of how short or long, of self-discovery.
As such I accept that the applicant has questions about faith and specifically his own Muslim faith, and I interpret from his submissions that he has not practiced Islam for some years. But I find that the applicant would be identified by others as a Muslim as he is Pakistani, and it would be assumed that he was Muslim for the reason that about 98% of Pakistanis are Muslim.[2] But I find that he would be perceived to be a non-practicing Muslim. I find that there is nothing of the applicant that would suggest to a potential persecutor that he harbours some atheistic thoughts including any tendency or motivation for the applicant to voice or post an opinion on Islam.
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘DFAT Report: Pakistan’, 25 January 2022 at [3.28]

But a lack of participation in Muslim practices might lead him to face some harm as is discussed further below.
As such I find that the applicant is a non-practicing Muslim who may be required to adhere to social norms and conventions in Pakistan that are in part shaped by Islam including, for example, not eating publicly during Ramadan or attending public gatherings that are of a religious nature.
I also accept his claim that he has not told his parents, that his parents at some stage wanted him to marry a Muslim girl.
Considerations
The issues raised in the delegate’s decision based upon the applicant’s claims were relating to his claims of atheism. I found above that while he has atheist thoughts he would be perceived as a non-practicing Muslim. Ultimately, this is the same issue but of degrees in that the extent to which someone is non-practicing on the one end of the spectrum or on the other anti-religion is not clear cut nor can it be compartmentalised.
I first turn my mind to the applicant’s references to the blasphemy laws and his fear that they will be used against him. I note that earlier I found that the applicant does not have a motivation or reason to speak against Islam, as in part, he has not spoken out about Islam in Australia. As such, without the spoken word there is no basis upon which someone could allege blasphemy.
When considering this same issue more generally, such that a blasphemy accusation may be made against him for reasons other than what he says or does, including for example for reasons of wanting to harm him over some property dispute or because of a personal animosity, without evidence before the Tribunal that this is a problem in Pakistan, it remains speculative and as such I give no further consideration.
For these reasons, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from fears of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws being used against him.
I note that the country information provided by the applicant by way of the delegate’s decision and the article about the killing of an atheist student. Additionally, other relevant country information which would have been put to the applicant had he accepted the invitation to the hearing includes:
·1 in 10 Pakistanis identify as being ‘not religious’[3]
·Atheism is not illegal in Pakistan, but publicly speaking about atheism can be seen as apostasy[4]
·In Pakistan there are atheists[5] and agnostics (as noted above in the PAA)
·Surveys show that 11.2% of Pakistani males only attend religious services on special holy days, a further 3.8% of males attend only once a year and an additional 14.3% attend less often than once a year or never.[6]
[3] ‘Losing Our Religion? Two Thirds of People Still Claim to Be Religious’, Gallup International (Bulgaria), 8 June 2015
[4] Pakistan’s secret atheists, Muhammad Adnan Faysal, Dr Rashidah binti Mamat Dr Shukri Ahmad, ‘Understanding the Argument of Atheists in Pakistan (An Analytical Survey of University Students)’ Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization, Vol 11 No 2 (2021)
[6] World Values Survey, Wave 7 (2017-2022), Code Book and Results Pakistan v.3.0 (2018) Question 171
The above country information is indicative of a significant proportion of the population only participating in religious events when there are ‘special holy days’ and even more, 14.3%, less than once a year or never attend religious events. There is no information before the Tribunal that suggests that such a large group amounting to over a quarter of the Pakistan male population faces a threat, let alone a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
I acknowledge that the absence of evidence may not necessarily be proof, but in this instance, it is not logical to believe without any evidence that a quarter of the Pakistan male population face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm. At the very least such a threat would be mentioned in a DFAT report which it is not.[7] As such I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from being a non-practising Muslim (i.e., does not seek to fulfill the five pillars of Islam) from either his family, society, or government.
[7] DFAT 2022
It is important to note that the applicant did not mention that he had any objections to cultural Islam, that is the communal celebrations and commemorations of a Muslim nation. Nevertheless, I will consider the unarticulated claim that arises tolerably clearly from the material which is the situation of someone in his family or at work requesting him to attend a religious cultural event or placing him in a situation in which the societal norm is to act in a manner consistent with Islamic traditions (i.e., at a funeral).
In such a situation the applicant would have to either reject the invitation and possibly have to, in essence, out himself by explaining why he objected to the practices, which I accept would lead to him facing a real chance of serious harm, or alternatively modifying his behaviour such that he did not out himself during those instances.
In considering whether it would be a reasonable modification of behaviour, I consider the question of whether the applicant can be expected to take reasonable steps to align with the outward acts of what he deems to be the traditions of a false belief on a limited number of family or work related events and in particular whether such a modification of his behaviour would be in breach of s5J(3).
In considering this further I refer to section 5J(3)(c) which states:
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;
In this instance, accepting or participating in societal norms such as not eating publicly during Ramadan would not be in ‘conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience’. The applicant had questions about the existence of a god. I accepted that they were lingering in his mind and had solidified to a point that he has affirmed that there is no god. But participating in communal activities expected of members of a society does not require positive affirmation by the individual’s conscience of the purpose behind the activity or interference with one’s sense of identity. Does every politician who swears allegiance to the Crown before taking their seat in parliament believe in the Monarchy? Does every person who mouths an Acknowledgement of Country before a meeting need to positively affirm in their conscience that they respect elders past and present? Being expected to make such acts while holding a contrary view can be necessary for reasons of social cohesion where a society has broadly accepted these acts as necessary for some greater good. This does not necessarily mean that such expectations precipitate a conflict with the conscience or challenge a person’s identity, though in some specific instances they may.
In the applicant’s case, due to the limited nature of his atheistic beliefs, I find that an expectation that he participates in and aligns his behaviour with societal norms that are shaped by Islam is not in conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience. For this reason, such an expectation for the applicant to modify his behaviour would not be in breach of s 5J(3)(a) and (c).
As discussed earlier in this decision, the applicant’s beliefs do not require any actions such that he would be identified as an atheist. With a lack of actions there is nothing that the applicant could be required to conceal as there are no outwardly visible markers of being an atheist. For this reason, such an expectation for the applicant to modify his behaviour would not be in breach of s 5J(3)(b) and (c).
As such, I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution as he can be expected to take reasonable steps to modify his behaviour such that he does not face a real chance of serious harm when invited to attend religious events by family or work colleagues.
I now turn my mind to consider whether he faces a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal in the context of the claim arising from someone in his family or from his future workplace requesting him to attend a religious cultural event or place him in a situation in which the societal norm is to act in a manner consistent with Islamic traditions (i.e., at a funeral).
In this case, I reference the findings of Mercuri J in EJC18 & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 3171 (27 November 2020) in which this member heard the case involving a Pakistani man fearing harm arising from a choice he claimed he will make if he were to return to Pakistan, namely, to pursue through the courts a land claim. Mercuri J found at [60] & [62]:
In saying that the applicants had a ‘choice’ as to whether or not to pursue the ‘Cosmic Town Land’ claim, the Tribunal did little more than indicate that the pursuit of land claims was not something that was such an intrinsic part of the applicants that any harm which would follow from pursuing those claims could be said to be a natural consequence of their return to Pakistan. There is much force to this analysis.
I find that the Tribunal did not fall into error in concluding that if the applicants sought to pursue the property claim on their return, any harm that may follow is not a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their return.
Similarly, in this instance, whether the applicant choses to accept any invitation from family or friends to events that could compromise his views on religion, is a choice that he can make, and as such he could simply choose not to go. If he chooses not to attend, he will not face a real risk of significant harm. As such I find that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.
I have also considered whether the applicant’s views may change into the reasonably foreseeable future such that he explores further his questions and finds answers that reinforce his current doubts such that he would take steps that may change how others perceive him. While it is possible, I find that he will not, for the reason that the applicant has been in Australia since 2007 and has identified as being an atheist, as he defined it, since 2015 and yet there is no evidence before this Tribunal in 2023 that shows that has pursued the opportunity to seek out more answers and clarify his views or take on a more active role. As such I have not considered it further.
The applicant also stated that his family want him to marry a Muslim girl. He wrote that no other family would want their daughter to marry an atheist. I accept that his family want him to marry, as many parents would, and also that there are other families who may not want their daughter to marry an atheist.
But even so, there is a long series of assumptions that make any assessment of risk speculative. The nature of the claim is that at the age of [age] he would be susceptible to being pushed by his parents to marry someone against his wishes and that in turn his family would be able to find another family who accepts someone of his age and that it turns out that this person has problems with the applicant’s limited doubts about Islam and his lack of practicing Islam so much so that she informs on him to someone who would harm him. This necessary series of causal events is particularly unlikely as the applicant has self-evidently been able to rebuff his parents’ wishes for marriage for the past at least 6 years and possibly as long as twenty years. As such I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from his parents wishes for him to marry.
I have also considered whether his claim that religion is only used for the purposes of controlling the masses is a political claim. This would align with a view that the applicant objects to the Pakistan state and how it has co-opted religion, but there is no evidence to suggest that. He has not expressed any objection to the politics of Pakistan and how it is intertwined with religion. As such I find that for the reason the applicant does not harbour any religio-political view, there is no basis upon which he will face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for reasons of political opinion.
When considered cumulatively, noting the applicant’s doubts about religion and lack of visible acts that identify him as atheist, while taking into consideration country information and what have been found to be reasonable steps to modify his behaviour in particular contexts, and adding his family’s expectations of marriage, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
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 2432

30 June 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction