1808695 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 4802

1808695 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4802 (9 November 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Dushan Nikolic (MARN: 5511415)
CASE NUMBER:  1808695
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Justin Meyer
DATE:9 November 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 09 November 2023 at 5:35pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion and political opinion – non-practicing Muslim now atheist with western lifestyle – questioning and critical statements – ethnicity – Punjabi resident in Baluchistan – non-marital relationship with non-Muslim Australian ceased after pregnancy and abortion – mental health – fear of harm from family, extremist groups and government authorities – family moved because of community attitudes and general violence – father’s recent death blamed on stress caused by applicant – minimal contact with family – delay in applying for protection – applied after student visa cancelled – country information – proportion of population atheist, agnostic and non- or rarely-attending Muslim – atheism not illegal but laws against blasphemy and apostasy – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 dependants.
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 28 February 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, applied for the visa on 4 November 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that she was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee as defined by s5H(1) and was not satisfied the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s36(2)(a) of the Act. There was no real risk of the applicant facing significant harm, as defined in s36(2A), for these reasons if he returned to Pakistan in the foreseeable future.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 September 2023 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Pakistan for one or more of the five reasons set out, and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be affirmed.
I have taken into account the applicant’s mental health bearing in mind the psychological/ psychiatric evidence submitted.
I have given consideration to the applicant’s mental state at the time of the hearing. He was lucid throughout the hearing and could answer questions with confidence. He was given time to compose his thoughts. He was informed of his opportunity to call for a break at any time. Although the hearing was possibly stressful, he was capable of giving evidence competently.
The Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division’s Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons were applied in this case. The representative assisted the applicant with his case by providing written submissions and written evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant appeared to have a good understanding of the obligation to be truthful in his communication of evidence.
Procedural Background to the Case Before the Tribunal.
The progress of this case is as follows:
Date      Event details
03/03/2014                 The applicant was granted a TU573 (Student) visa offshore.
[03]/2014 The applicant arrived in Australia on a Pakistani passport as the holder of the class TU subclass 573 visa that was valid until [2016]. The applicant has remained in Australia since this date.
04/10/2016 The applicant was sent a Notice of intention to consider cancellation of Student (Temporary) (class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa under section 5116 (General Power) of the Migration Act 1958.
18/10/2016 The applicant responded to the above notice through his nominated migration agent wrote to the Department of Home Affairs (then, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection).
26/10/2016                 The TU 573 (Student) visa held by the applicant was cancelled
04/11/2016 The applicant lodged the current class XA subclass 866 (Protection) visa application and is currently onshore as the holder of a class WC subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa.
The applicant’s claims, as stated to the department in 2016, were:
·     The applicant is currently a [Age]-year-old never married man born in Quetta in Balochistan in Pakistan. He claims to be a non-practicing Muslim of Punjabi ethnicity. His parents, a brother and two sisters reside in Lahore. The applicant claims he has not previously travelled to any other country.
·     The applicant came to Australia to study however he was forced to stop studying after his family's situation in Pakistan became difficult forcing his family to leave Quetta and relocate to Lahore.
·     While his family is "less strict in their approach to the Islamic faith" he has reached a point where he can no longer follow or be a part of the Islamic faith as he finds certain aspects of the faith and its practice deeply offensive and contrary to his core principles.
·     He is seeking protection in Australia as he fears returning to Pakistan, where he fears he would be regarded as a person who has abandoned his religion as a result of which he would be imputed with particular political views.
·     He was raised as a Muslim, however as he got older, he could "tell the difference between right and wrong" and therefore did not subscribe to the "preaching of hatred against non-Muslims" that occurred after prayers at the mosque he attended.
·     He witnessed youngsters being encouraged to do Jihad by people standing outside mosques targeting youngsters to do something against non-Muslims.
·     As a Muslim, his father encouraged him to attend the mosque however told the applicant and his siblings not to listen to these people.
·     If he didn't go the mosque, his father was criticised.
·     He was bullied and ostracised by others for refusing to go the prayer room at school and when in college. He received threats due to his open-minded thinking and way of life and was forced to dress and act the same way as his peers did.
·     His family has been threatened in Pakistan as they are Punjabis, residing in Quetta where they are targeted for forced recruitment by terrorist group/s.
·     He fears harm from the Islamic community in Pakistan for being a non-practicing Muslim; eating non-halal foods and drinking alcohol.
·     He would be considered anti-Islamic due to his ideas, opinions and way of life.
·     In Australia, he continues to practice his religion although he does not follow all the teachings of Islam.
·     In Pakistan, he cannot voice his opinion freely. He fears that if his views become known, he will be in grave danger.
·     In the year 2011-2012 when he was in Year [Number], the Imam at his mosque was talking about Jihad and stated that the attack on Lal Masjid in Islamabad, by the Pakistani security forces was wrong. The applicant claims that he stated his opinion in support of the Pakistani government's offensive at the Lal Masjid stating that the government's offensive was justified as terrorist were being bred and harboured at the Lal Masjid.
·     As a resulting of voicing his opinion disagreeing with the Imam, two people grabbed him and threw him out of the mosque, which incidentally was a Shia mosque.
·     He was already considered a non-Muslim in Pakistan. He will also be harmed for being in a non-marital relationship with an Australian, non-Muslim woman named [Ms A] who has a child from another relationship. Additionally he and [Ms A] are expecting their first child together who would be born out of wedlock. If he married a non-Muslim girl, he would be disowned by his family and society, placing him and his partner's life at risk.
·     He fears becoming a victim of mob violence and prosecution under Pakistan's blasphemy laws that carry the death penalty.
·     If forced to return to Pakistan, he fears harm for being a "Failed Asylum Seeker from a Western Country."
·     He fears harm from both the armed anti-government groups and the government for his political opinion. The authorities in Pakistan will not protect him as they follow Islamic rules and anyone engaged in non-Islamic activity including engaging in a relationship with a non-Muslim person will attract the death penalty under Sharia law.
·     He also fears harm on account of his membership of particular social groups including — "Men of Punjabi ethnicity raised in Quetta": "Men between the ages of [Age] and [Age] years old" and "Returnees from the West."
·     He believes he will be targeted for recruitment by terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ).
·     His family has already been forced to flee from Quetta to Lahore due to recent jihadist expansion into this area.
·     If forced to return to Pakistan, as a non-practicing Muslim, he would only be able get low paying job/s and therefore find it difficult to subsist in Pakistan.
·     He cannot relocate safely anywhere in Pakistan.
·     The applicant presented several news articles and reports about the situation in Pakistan pertaining to religion, religious intolerance, blasphemy laws and militancy.
The applicant made these submissions to the Tribunal:
[The applicant] is currently [Age] years of age. He is a citizen of Pakistan.
[The applicant] is an ex-Sunni Muslim, born in Quetta, Pakistan. He does not follow any religion and could be considered to be an atheist.
On 3 March 2014 [the applicant] was granted a Student visa (subclass 573) while he was offshore. He entered Australia [in] March 2014 to commence his studies, being a Bachelor of [Subject] at [University] Australia. While he was in Australia his family in Pakistan were receiving threats which forced them to relocate from Quetta to Lahore for their safety. Due to community attitudes and general violence towards Punjabi people in Quetta, they decided to relocate. Due to this, [the applicant] was unable to pay for his course fees and received a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation for his student visa on 4 October 2016. His student visa was cancelled on 26 October 2016.
As [the applicant] mentioned in his statements, he has always felt that some aspects of the Islamic faith were at odds with his own conscience and specifically notes an incident when he was in Pakistan during an Eid celebration where families would bring animals to sacrifice to Allah that were slaughtered on the street in front of everyone. He believed that this was wrong and spoke out against it and was criticised and targeted for doing so.
Further, while [the applicant] has been living in Australia, he has stopped following Islam. While at the time of his protection interview he was visiting the mosque around once a month, [the applicant] now instructs that it has been 4 or 5 years since he last visited a mosque. He drinks alcohol and eats non-halal food.
[The applicant] was also in a relationship with an Australian woman, [Ms A]. She fell pregnant but decided to have an abortion. During their relationship, [Ms A] spoke to [the applicant]’s sister and informed the family about both the relationship as well as the abortion. As a result of this, [the applicant]’s family cut contact with him and he has only had limited contact with his sister. His family disapproves of both the relationship and abortion as both are not accepted in Islam.
On 4 November 2016 [the applicant] applied for a Protection (subclass 866) visa.
The Applicant was subsequently interviewed on 23 November 2017.
On 28 February 2018, the Department refused his Protection visa.
On 29 March 2018 [the applicant] sought review of the decision of the Department in the Tribunal.
A Tribunal hearing in his matter has been convened for 8 September 2022.
…
In accordance with ss 5J(1) [the applicant] has a well-founded fear of persecution, as follows: a. Pursuant to ss 5J(1)(a) [the applicant] fears being persecuted on the basis of religion and membership of particular social groups, including on the basis of his atheist beliefs, as a former Shia Muslim, as a target of Muslims and members of the wider Pakistan community due to his atheist beliefs and anti-Islamic views and behaviours, and as a target of the Pakistani authorities and other agents as the holder of atheist beliefs, imputed apostasy and anti-Islamic views and behaviours.
b. Pursuant to ss 5J(1)(b) there is a real chance1 that if he was returned to Pakistan that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons. As the Tribunal is aware, a ‘real chance’ of persecution excludes a far-fetched possibility of persecution ‘but as little as a 10 per cent chance of persecution may constitute a well-founded fear of persecution.’2
c. Pursuant to ss 5J(1)(c) that real chance relates to the entire receiving country.
This is not conduct that [the applicant] has engaged in to strengthen his claims for protection (ss 36(6)).
As the country information below shows, and in respect of ss 5J(2), there are no effective protection measures available for [the applicant].
While his family currently resides in Lahore, it would not be safe for [the applicant] to live there due to his atheist beliefs.
In respect of ss 5J(3), [the applicant] cannot modify or conceal himself to avoid the persecution that he fears given that his atheistic beliefs and views on the Muslim religion – which are described by the Applicant as fundamental to his very being – are part of the reasons he claims protection in conjunction with his relationship and subsequent abortion being the reason why he has been targeted by members of the Muslim and broader Pakistan community and is an outcast amongst his friends, relations and family in his country of nationality.
In respect of ss 5J(4), [the applicant]’s religion and membership of particular social groups are the essential and significant reasons for the persecution that he faces and he faces serious harm on that basis, being systemic and discriminatory conduct.
[The applicant] fears serious harm, as detailed in his statement, and including: a.
a. threat to his life or liberty;
b. significant physical harassment;
c. significant physical ill treatment;
d. significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist;
e. denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist; and
f. denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist.
Therefore, [the applicant] is owed protection in accordance with ss 36(2)(a), with country information set out below in support of his claims.
If the Tribunal, incorrectly in our view, forms the view that [the applicant] is not owed protection obligations on the basis of ss 36(2)(a), then we submit that he falls within ss 36(2)(aa) and is owed complementary protection obligations
We submit that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of [the applicant] being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. This includes that he will be: a. arbitrarily deprived of his life;
b. subjected to torture;
c. subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; and
d. subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
Therefore, [the applicant] is owed complementary protection obligations in accordance with ss 36(2)(aa), with country information set out below in support of this.
Country Information
It is well established that the Muslim religion holds immense dominance in Pakistan, comprising 96.47 per cent of the population, to the detriment of other religions and belief systems, inclusive of atheism. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Pakistan, dated 25 January 2022, (DFAT Report) has highlighted that Pakistan has become less tolerant of religious diversity, a position which directly affects the status of atheists and apostates:
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 25 January 2022,
[3.31] Religious extremism and intolerance are on the rise in Pakistan. A record number of blasphemy cases were filed in 2020, and public and online hate speech has increased. While the number of sectarian attacks decreased from 2013-20, in line with an overall improvement in the security situation, violence has recently increased, and attacks on religious minorities, their places of worship and festivities continue.
[3.33] Religious conversion from Islam (apostasy) while not illegal is often seen as blasphemous and can result in prosecution under blasphemy laws, or in familial or communal violence. Article 295A prohibits insulting any religion, not just Islam, and carries a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment, which may also be accompanied by a fine.
The treatment of blasphemy and blasphemers by the law and authorities in Pakistan is indicative of the well-founded fear of persecution faced by individuals who hold diverse beliefs and anti-Islamic views and sentiments:
[3.32] Blasphemy and other offences relating to religion are criminalised in Pakistan under Articles 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). Article 295C outlaws the use of ‘derogatory remarks’ against the Holy Prophet. The punishment for blasphemy is death. Under Article 295B, ‘defiling’ a copy of the Quran is punishable by life imprisonment, and under Article 298A, defiling ‘the sacred name of any wife, or members of the family, of the Holy Prophet, or any of the righteous Caliphs’ carries a maximum punishment of three years in prison, which may also be accompanied by a fine.
[3.37] DFAT assesses that people accused of blasphemy are at high risk of extrajudicial violence and the death penalty, and high risk of societal and official discrimination in the form of popular denunciation, unfair trials and inadequate state protection. The risks are especially acute for members of religious minorities, including Shi’a, Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus.
The DFAT report highlights that the Government and Judiciary are unable to protect persons accused of blasphemy:
[3.34] The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) reported 200 blasphemy cases in 2020, an all-time high which has been widely linked to rising religious intolerance. Of these 35 were sentenced to death. Religious minorities are disproportionately affected: in 70 per cent of the cases the accused was Shi’a, 20 per cent Ahmadi and 3.5 per cent Christian. False accusations of blasphemy are used to settle personal disputes, as in the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2010 after a dispute with Muslim neighbours in which they refused to share water with her because she was a Christian. Bibi was acquitted and released from prison in 2018 and fled to Canada. People have been charged with blasphemy for online speech; for instance, three men were sentenced to death by an Islamabad court in 2021 for sharing ‘blasphemous’ material on social media. In July 2021, an eight-year-old boy was charged with blasphemy in Eastern Punjab after allegedly urinating in a Madrassa library.
[3.35] The conviction rate for blasphemy in the lower courts is high, and judges are often under enormous public pressure to deliver a guilty verdict. A Pakistani legal expert told DFAT most blasphemy convictions were overturned by the higher courts, but an accused blasphemer was likely to spend years in prison even if the accusation was eventually found to be baseless. Judges and defence lawyers are often reluctant to take on blasphemy cases due to the personal security risks involved, resulting in appeals being delayed until a new bench is constituted.
[3.36] Accused blasphemers are at risk of extrajudicial killing, before, during, and after being taken into custody. In December 2021, a Sri Lankan man was beaten to death and his corpse set on fire after being accused of blasphemy due to removing posters from the wall of the factory in Sialkot, Punjab, where he worked. During the murder his killers chanted slogans popularised by Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), an Islamic extremist group. Afterwards they posed for selfies with his corpse and shared video of his murder on social media. In August 2020 a US national on trial for blasphemy, Tahir Naseem, was gunned down in a Peshawar courtroom by a 15-year-old boy. Thousands rallied in the streets to support Naseem’s killer, and politicians visited the killer’s home and police posed for selfies with him. Extremist groups and individuals have targeted politicians, lawyers and judges who have spoken out against blasphemy laws. The former governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was assassinated by one of his bodyguards for calling for reform of blasphemy laws. Large numbers of people protested when his assassin (whom they considered a hero) was executed in February 2016.
The interrelationship between the political system and religious ideologies of Pakistan governed by the teachings of the Koran are cemented in Pakistan’s Constitution which establishes Islam as the state religion.6 Where religious Hudood offences occur these become subject to investigation by the State. The DFAT Report provides the following for Hudood offences and the interaction of Islam and the judiciary processes in Pakistan:
Sydasien, Blasphemy Law Pakistan is threatening against Secularism, 13 January 2019,
[3.30] In 1979, President Zia ul-Haq introduced The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, also known as the ‘Hudood Ordinances’, prohibiting consumption of alcohol, sex outside marriage and pornography. Non-Muslims are exempt from the alcohol ban; the other bans apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
…
[5.15] Although subordinate to the Supreme Court, the Federal Sharia Court (FSC) is a parallel court responsible for ensuring laws are consistent with Islamic principles. The FSC examines judgements of lower courts in cases arising from the Hudood Ordinances governing Muslim behaviour. The Council on Islamic Ideology is also influential, with the power to review legislation and make recommendations for legislative reform.
The discrimination against atheists extends specifically to their non-Islamic views and values and the inability to express secular thoughts freely, with holders of such beliefs facing persecution, lack of government protection and lack of access to justice. Media frequently reports how blasphemy laws in Pakistan have been used to persecute minority faiths, unfaith and unfairly target minorities:
Muslims openly identifying as atheist in Pakistan would be an open invitation to violence, considering the state’s blasphemy laws are interpreted to outlaw apostasy, coupled with the National Database and Registration Authority’s (NADRA) refusal to let citizens officially change Islam as their religion. Hence, the aforementioned “secular liberal” label also provides refuge to the atheists.
Asia Bibi the woman who was accused of blasphemy, isn’t the first victim of Pakistan’s outrageous blasphemy laws – yet the government refuses to take real action. There are thousands of victim in which Mashal Khan the secular blogger was killed by a mob on a university campus after being accused of blasphemy against Islam. Christian, Hindus and Ahmedis are easy target after free thinkers/secular bloggers.
More recently, the Government’s agenda to actively supress non-Islamic views has extended to the targeting of atheists via social media:
Violence, threats and discrimination towards atheists is met with impunity by the government. Various testimonies illustrate the social pressure on the citizens of Pakistan to adopt a certain interpretation of Islam. In their view, the government is trying to enforce the notion that “a good citizen must be a good Muslim.” The websites of several atheist communities and organizations have been blocked in the country. These include the website of Humanists International member Atheist Agnostic Alliance Pakistan (AAAP) and that of Pakistani Freethinkers.
Amongst the most harmful devices for systemic discrimination against freethinkers – as well as Ahmadis and non-Muslims — are its blasphemy laws. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif describes blasphemy as an “unpardonable offence.” The High Court in Islamabad has issued orders to take immediate actions against social media blasphemers. Pakistan’s Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has pressured social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp and Viber to reveal names of individuals and groups engaging in practices of blasphemy.
It has been reported that since the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) in 2016 co-opted the harsh clauses of the Pakistan Penal Code, blaspheming online became a capital crime, and the atheist community has been suffering from institutionalized discrimination, increased criminal prosecution and even community violence.
In 2017, immediately after passing PECA, Pakistan issued its first death sentence for digital blasphemy. The same year, the state launched a crackdown on online dissent and atheism, urging the masses to ‘report blasphemers,’ going so far as to abduct and torture activists and bloggers for dissent against the military establishment and Islamic hegemony
…
The arrests for blasphemy have escalated over the past five years in Pakistan and so has mob violence. For instance, the lynching of Mashal Khan by fellow students in 2017 and the death sentence issued for university lecturer Junaid Hafeez in 2019 have silenced debate on religion and atheism in educational institutions, including in digital spheres Moreover, the lynching in December of Sri Lankan citizen Priyantha Kumara, over allegations that he had torn a poster that had Islamic prayers written on them, was a gory reminder of how Pakistan’s blasphemy law continues to encourage Islamist mob violence.
…
Families disowning outspoken atheists is a frequent occurrence all over the country, with many even reporting their relatives for blasphemy. Many dissenters are also forced to flee after being labelled heretics by local Islamic clerics endangering their lives in their own hometowns.
Given this, it is obvious why certain family members of [the applicant] who are aware of his non-religion are opposed to his views and, also, how those extended family members who are yet made aware would object to his anti-Islamic beliefs. Expressing his views freely – which he began to do in his adolescence and which have since formed into an atheistic system of belief – has clearly caused considerable difficulty for [the applicant], whereby he was targeted because of his questioning of Islam and imputed anti-Muslim views. The fractured relationship [the applicant] has with some of his immediate family members has been catalysed by his views and values and the way he wishes to lead his life.
Pakistan is well known as an active site for community violence, especially in relation to persons deemed to hold blasphemous views and beliefs. In 2021, the BBC reported extensively on the aforementioned case of Sri Lankan man, Mr Priyantha Diyawadanage, who was beaten to death by a mob and his body set alight for allegedly committed a blasphemous act, raising concerns that Pakistan was not doing enough to address the rise in community-related violence against holders of diverse views in the country.
In Pakistan, even unfounded accusations can incite protests and mob violence against alleged perpetrators. Human rights critics have long argued that minorities are often the target of accusations.11
Further credible sources on apostacy and atheism, and to which the Tribunal has recently referred, such as ‘The Diplomat’ publication of the Lowry Institute think tank detail the increased institutionalised suppression of nonbelievers of Islam:
But what this has meant is that both the civilian and military leaders now have to appease their heretofore Islamist allies to avoid collective backlash, as action against jihadist groups becomes inevitable. Pakistan’s overt war against freethinkers might just give the state the respite that it needs.
Last year, Pakistan also passed its cybercrime law, which upholds identical punishments for Penal Code violations in the cyber-sphere. This means that “blasphemy” would be punishable by death, even if committed online.
The immediate impact of January’s abductions was a mass exodus of anonymous secular bloggers from the web. Satirical publication Khabaristan Times was also banned by the PTA, while a shift in editorial policies has been visible in many online and mainstream liberal publications.”
...
Pakistani atheists – a broad term encompassing agnostics, the irreligious, deists, and humanists alike – have been lazily painted by the Islamists as “liberals and seculars,” despite the fact that many believing and practicing Muslims identify as such as well.
Muslims openly identifying as atheist in Pakistan would be an open invitation to violence, considering the state’s blasphemy laws are interpreted to outlaw apostasy, coupled with the National Database and Registration Authority’s (NADRA) refusal to let citizens officially change Islam as their religion. Hence, the aforementioned “secular liberal” label also provides refuge to the atheists.13
There is corruption within the Pakistan Police force. In 2020 in world rankings, Pakistan ranked at 124 out of 180 on Transparency International’s 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index. As DFAT highlights:
[2.28] Corruption, both petty and serious, is a major problem in Pakistan. It is driven by low public sector wages and a culture of nepotism, patronage and kinship ties that overrides loyalty to the state or respect for the law. Transparency International ranked Pakistan 124 out of 180 countries in its 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index. According to Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer, 40 per cent of Pakistanis surveyed reported having paid a bribe to access public services in the 12 months prior to the survey, the worst result in the Asia-Pacific. This figure jumped to 68 per cent for people in contact with law courts and 75 per cent for people seeking help from the police.
Sydasien, Blasphemy Law Pakistan is threatening against Secularism, 13 January 2019,
The Print, Atheists in Pakistan fearful as crackdowns on digital blasphemy continue, 23 May 2022,
Humanists International, The Humanists at Risk: Action Report 2020, pp. 48-49,
BBC News, Pakistan: Killing of Sri Lankan accused of blasphemy sparks protests, 06 December 2021,
See 1729039 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4093 (10 September 2021) at [52],
The Diplomat, Pakistan’s War on Atheism: Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy crackdown is tightening the noose around nonbelievers, 10 March 2017,
As [the applicant] has detailed, he has experienced difficulty with his mental health, in part due to the passing of his father who he was estranged to due to his renouncing of Islam. We submit that he would be unable to access appropriate treatment and support in Pakistan should he seek further treatment. As DFAT highlights, there is significant lack of access and a lack of mental health professionals:
[2.14] Mental health disorders are reportedly common in Pakistan, and options for treatment are limited. According to a 2020 article in the medical journal The Lancet, Pakistan has fewer than 500 psychiatrists serving a population of 200 million. More than 90 per cent of people with common mental health disorders go untreated. Those who cannot access conventional psychiatric treatment sometimes turn to traditional spiritual healers known as baba, pir or sufi. COVID-19 has reportedly worsened the mental health situation in Pakistan.
The Tribunal has previously found an Applicant satisfied the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) on the basis of atheist views in the matter of 1729039 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4093 (10 September 2021).15 The Tribunal addressed, amongst the other criterion, the inability of an applicant to relocate given that actants likely to cause harm could find the Applicant in any part of the receiving country, i.e. Pakistan: In that case, the Tribunal found that:
[48] The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant could well fall foul of blasphemy laws. He has converted ‘out of a religion’ into ‘no religion’. There is no evidence that having no belief is an escape for him with regard to these laws.
…
[53] To the Tribunal’s mind there is a plethora of country information to indicate that the applicant faces a substantial risk equating to a real risk and has a well-founded fear of persecution.
[54] The country information I have reviewed and referred to above suggests that the agents of harm the applicant claims to fear include the Pakistan state; non-state religious actors; and, members of the wider Pakistan community (including members of his family).
[55] I find that discrimination, harassment and intimidation of the particular social group, being former Muslims and imputed apostates embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies in Pakistan is for the essential and significant reason that they form the particular social group. I further find that the legal and institutional nature of such persecution is both systematic and discriminatory in the relevant sense, and amounts to serious harm for the purposes of s.5J(4) of the Act.
[56] The above country information demonstrates that there is a real chance of significant physical harassment and significant physical ill-treatment in Pakistan for former Muslims and imputed apostates embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies in that country. This chance of significant physical harassment and significant physical ill treatment as a result of social and religious forces, find expression in the legal system, to which former Muslims and imputed apostates embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies would be subject.
[57] Effective protection measures are not available to members of this particular social group, being innate or immutable characteristics of the applicant and which are shared by members of the particular social group. This is because adequate protection against persecution either cannot, or will not, be provided to members of the particular social group by the Pakistan state, and credible country information raises doubts about whether the Pakistan state is willing and able to offer such protection for the purposes of s.5LA of the Act.
[58] s.5J(3) provides that this does not apply to a modification that would conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to a person’s identity or conscience, or that would conceal an innate or immutable characteristic or to a modification that would require a person to alter their religious beliefs, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or conceal their true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
[59] The well-founded fear of persecution cannot be regarded as being restricted to a single part of the receiving country if relocating carries with it the need to avoid persecution by living discreetly or otherwise being invisible.
[60] The real chance of significant physical harassment and significant physical ill treatment faced on return to Pakistan is systematic and discriminatory and relates to all areas within Pakistan.
The Tribunal made a similar finding in the matter of 1512096 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1197 (25 June 2017), finding that an atheist who had rejected Islam and led an un-Islamic lifestyle could not return to Pakistan:
[40] The Tribunal notes that blasphemy is an offence under Pakistan’s Penal Code and that the punishment for insulting Islam extends to death or life imprisonment. As at January 2016, there were 38 people on death row for allegedly committing blasphemy although no executions had been carried out. Although blasphemy laws are often used to settle personal scores and are mostoften used against members of religious minorities, they have reportedly fostered an atmosphere of religious intolerance and have fuelled violence and targeted attacks against members of religious minorities. Individuals accused of blasphemy have reportedly been subject to death threats, assaults and assassination by community members and others have been killed or tortured in custody. Hard line groups have opposed reform of the blasphemy laws and high profile activists and politicians have been killed for their opposition to the laws. The US State Department has reported on ongoing arrests, charges and convictions under the blasphemy law and the USCIRF has reported that violent extremists threaten citizens who do not follow their authoritarian interpretation of Islam or who dissent from Islam.
[41] The UNHCR has noted that the death penalty for blasphemy has been deemed to be disproportionate punishment which may amount to persecution. Police, lawyers and judges often demonstrate bias against persons accused of blasphemy thus infringing on the right to a fair trial. The blasphemy provisions are themselves open to interpretation and therefore allow judges to apply their own interpretation in accordance with their own Islamic beliefs. Lawyers and judges involved in blasphemy cases have themselves been threatened and intimidated making it difficult for those accused to obtain legal representation or limiting the arguments lawyers will make in their defence.
[42] The Tribunal accepts the applicant faces a more than remote chance of harm from extremist members of the community and possibly the authorities or if he openly commits Hudood offences or refuses to comply with religious practices and publically expresses his views about Islam. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in Pakistan because of his religion. Under Australian law, this Convention ground extends to non-belief with the Federal Court noting that “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”.[9] The Tribunal is satisfied that such harm involves systematic and discriminatory conduct and that the essential and significant reason for the harm is the applicant’s religious belief and his expression of his religious belief.
[43] The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant will not be able to access adequate state protection. Whilst the government has taken steps to crack down on extremism, and has been known to arrest blasphemy perpetrators to protect them from mob violence, their capacity to protect the applicant is limited by resource shortages, poor training and manipulation by superiors, politicians and the judiciary. Even when arrests occur, successful prosecutions of perpetrators of religious violence are rare because of inadequate police investigations and intimidation of judges and witnesses. [10] USCIRF has also reported that the police have failed to protect victims of religiously motivated violence.
[44] The Tribunal is satisfied that the chance of harm exists across Pakistan and that internal relocation is not available to the applicant.
The Tribunal found an Applicant was owed protection on the basis of being a former Muslim and imputed apostate embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies in Pakistan in the matter of 1701354 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2003 (24 February 2020).In analogous circumstances to [the applicant] with respect to his personal journey and internal conflict of identifying as an atheist, the Tribunal also made findings in favour of the Applicant despite a delay in seeking protection as well as a period of voluntary return to Pakistan prior to applying for protection in Australia:
[50] I note that an applicant for protection does not have to show past persecution in order to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. For example, depending on the circumstances an applicant who belongs to a persecuted group might establish a well-founded fear even though an applicant has not personally suffered harm in the past.
[51] Having said that, I do believe that the mental health difficulties you have experienced in Australia and since 2015 have, at least partially, been due to an anticipation of the harm you would experience if you were to return to Pakistan. While I find that disagreements within families do not constitute persecution for the purposes of the Act, religiously motivated persecution may nevertheless amount to persecution for the purposes of the Act even if it is exercised by agents of harm in one’s own family.
[52] An applicant who has not been persecuted in the past might also establish a well-founded fear because their own circumstances have changed, such as a conversion experience, or because circumstances have changed in the applicant’s country during their absence.
[53] In this respect I note that you have provided a compelling narrative of your process of religious enquiry and your changed views relating to questions of faith and belief while in Australia since 2013.
[54] The country information I have reviewed and referred to above suggests that the agents of harm you would claim to fear include the Pakistan state; non-state religious actors; and, members of the wider Pakistan community (including members of your own family).
[55] I find that discrimination, harassment and intimidation of the particular social group, being former Muslims and imputed apostates embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies in Pakistan is for the essential and significant reason that they form the particular social group. I further find that the legal and institutional nature of such persecution is both systematic and discriminatory in the relevant sense, and amounts to serious harm for the purposes of s.5J(4) of the Act.
[56] The existence of a real chance of significant physical harassment and significant physical ill treatment in Pakistan of the particular social group, former Muslims and imputed apostates embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies in Pakistan, identified in the credible country information, is not reduced merely by the fact that a proportion of that community might choose to be open about their secular humanist views.
[57] How an individual chooses to respond to a given chance of significant physical harassment and significant physical ill-treatment does not determine whether the chance is real or that such harm will occur. [58] I find that the above credible country information demonstrates that there is a real chance of significant physical harassment and significant physical ill-treatment in Pakistan for former Muslims and imputed apostates embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies in that country. This chance of significant physical harassment and significant physical ill treatment as a result of complex social and religious forces, find arch expression in the legal system, to which former Muslims and imputed apostates embracing and advocating for secular humanist ideologies would be subject.
We submit that in addition to his atheistic beliefs, [the applicant] has adopted Western behaviours, and leads an atheistic and anti-Islamic way of life inclusive of the non-observance of Muslim rituals and customs, forming prior romantic relationships with non-Muslims and, most fundamentally, by his questioning and renouncing the teachings of Islam in favour of humanistic principles, amounting to, as would be considered in Pakistan, blasphemy or blasphemous practices that place him in the path of a real risk of serious harm.
Given the claims of [the applicant] and the country information demonstrating that he faces serious harm on return to Pakistan, the Tribunal can be satisfied that he is owed protection.
Conclusion
We submit that when assessed cumulatively, [the applicant] clearly has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis his atheist beliefs, as a former Sunni Muslim, as a target of Muslims and members of the wider Pakistan community due to his atheist beliefs views and behaviours, and as a target of the Pakistani authorities and other agents as the holder of atheist beliefs, imputed apostasy and anti-Islamic views and behaviours.
On this basis, we submit that the [the applicant] is owed protection obligations pursuant to ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Act. Therefore, we request that the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Department and remit the application with a direction that [the applicant] satisfies ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Act.

The applicant’s evidence in the hearing was in these terms:
The applicant said he came to Australia in 2014 to study. He was aged [Age] years. He had to stop studies in his first semester due to his financial situation. His father had relocated the family from Quetta in Baluchistan to Lahore - his mother and older sister reside there and he has a younger sister who is single and a brother who is married.
He is of Punjabi background. It was his idea to study in Australia.
His school principal had been assassinated near Quetta and he believed that this was because he was a Punjabi. The perpetrators had said this. He had been threatened before. A classmate was travelling along at the same time and also was assassinated. The group had claimed responsibility was a radical Baluchistan group.
He was talking to his mother and younger sister in the early days when studying. The contact reduced over time to the point of no contact once they found out about his relationship with [Ms A]. This coincided with his new period of drinking and not eating halal food. His family did not know about those changes though. He ended up calling them less.
When he arrived in Australia he tried to eat Halal food. But sometimes would not eat it at all. He stopped learning the Koran and going to mosque. He has not observed Ramadan for six years.
The student visa was eventually cancelled in 2015 because of not receiving money from his family due to their financial situation.
He entered a relationship in 2015 with a woman called [Ms A] who was of an Australian background. He supported himself through casual jobs in [Work sectors 1 and 2]. Since his father’s death he has been working in [Work sector 1]. The relationship with [Ms A] lasted until 2018. They were planning to buy the house but were looking at rentals in the meantime. [Ms A] has a son who is autistic. The relationship ended because [Ms A] was pregnant and she had an abortion. [Ms A] was suspicious and thought that the applicant’s sister was in fact his wife.
The relationship was hidden from his family back home in Pakistan. He did not talk to his partner about religion. [Ms A] made the decision to have an abortion as she already had one child, and he had special needs.
I asked how the applicant felt about the situation and he said it was depressing for him. At seven weeks pregnancy the applicant said he was excited. He said at first [Ms A] wanted to keep the baby but she then had doubts. She was experiencing depression. The applicant repeated that he had not told his family about the relationship or the pregnancy. The applicant said he had met [Ms A]’s family only once.
I asked the applicant to talk about his parents. He said his mother is a very caring person but she is strict. He said that if we did not go to morning prayer “there would be issues”. He said his father’s personality was very strict. He said if he needed to ask things he received his advice from his father. His father was an authority figure. The applicant was forced to observe Ramadan unless he was genuinely sick.
He did not like observing Ramadan for a combination of reasons including the feeling of hunger and also the lack of exceptions of people who are feeling unwell even though they are not seriously sick. He could not understand the logic behind it. He could not ask his parents for the reasons there was just blind obedience to what the Prophet said.
I asked if he chose to drink alcohol in Australia – he said he did it of his own accord. When asked if he drank now, he said yes, he had been drinking quite heavily after his father’s death. He became lonely and depressed and did not confide in others. I asked if he drank behind closed doors or in a bar or similar. The applicant said he did not go to bars - he would just take a ‘can’ or similar and drink alone.
I asked if it was hard in his opinion to get hold of alcohol in Pakistan. He said that it is pretty hard, as it is not permitted. He said there must be people doing it. I asked if it would be hard for him and he said yes it would and that there would be no chance. I asked if he was dependent on alcohol and whether he might need it there. He said it was an alternative to sharing your feelings with close people. But if family was not accepting him (and they were not) he would have to turn to it.
The applicant said he was sent to boarding school in Baluchistan. She said the principal at the school was assassinated. It was in contact with parents and this was mainly with his mother and his younger sister. Eventually contact was reduced. Everything changed and he started drinking and he stopped communicating. He said he did not read the Koran anymore and did not observe Ramadan for almost six years.
He described himself as living with some males in a Melbourne suburb. He was aware that his mother was coming and she knocked on the door.
His sister had an exchange with [Ms A] about the pregnancy and the abortion, but he was not sure exactly what his family knew. His mother knew he said. The family has stopped talking to him. They will talk to him during a family crisis but otherwise he gets no mental or any other support. If he went to Lahore his family would not want to know him, they might hold him responsible for his father’s death because of this disappointment.
His father died on the Haj, and his brother arranged and paid for the pilgrimage.
I said that if he went back whether he would be shunned and this was a bad prospect, but enquired how that was persecution by his family. He said that he did not know whether his family would go to such an extent as to report him to the authorities. They might but he was not sure. They might hold him responsible for his father’s death. The hatred might kick in.
His parents observed religious festivals. He said that they were extreme when it came to following Islam. His father forbade watching television for example, because he thought that media was sick.
According to his claims to the department he said at page two:
“While his family is "less strict in their approach to the Islamic faith" he has reached a point where he can no longer follow or be a part of the Islamic faith as he finds certain aspects of the faith and its practice deeply offensive and contrary to his core principles.”
This made the Tribunal consider how strict the applicant’s parents actually were. The applicant responded that his father was the main authority in the house. He decided what would go on in the house. He was not so extreme though that he would not allow his sister to study as happens in some Muslim families.
His mother ‘went along’ with his father’s ideas such as TV bans. She did not have much of a say. Her opinions about television were arguable but as for going to mosque and observing Ramadan, sex outside marriage and abortion – she “won’t have any leniency on them.”
I noted that he was now [Age] and asked if [Age] year-olds could be told what to do in this way. He said that when it comes to a country like Pakistan he could make his own personal decisions in his personal life and they “will not say anything about it”. But, for example if he brought takeaway alcohol into the house there would be a problem.
He is not very involved with uncles and aunts but not one would accept what happened with [Ms A]. He has a fear that they might report him to someone – report him to the religious authorities. This is done to resolve personal agendas. I asked if he had enemies in Pakistan and he said no. He said it might happen bec ause of his beliefs – failure to go to Mosque and observe Ramadan might not lead to anything but if he spoke out about the mistreatment of animals during slaughtering there could be trouble. He might say something and face harm.
I noted that he once spoke out about it in the past - he objected to slaughtering animals in the street. He was a child at the time and thought of as not knowing anything yet. Now people might ask questions and also harm his family for not teach him well enough.
The Tribunal noted that Australia was a fairly liberal country where a significant number of people drank and lived with partners they are not married to. I suggested that people knew that in Pakistan. He said he would be in big trouble if someone saw him drinking even at home in Pakistan.
I asked if he had mental health conditions. He said he was planning to see a mental health professional in order to get help and medications. So far he had been trying to avoid this.
He said that being down and depressed would affect him in Pakistan. He had no one to talk and would not have to resort to alcohol. Yet he might drink in Pakistan.
He has been working in Australia and earns AUD1,000 to AUD1,200 per week. He was working well until his father’s death. He was working on and off. When calling in sick the boss was unhappy. Sometimes he is absent minded. He could hold down a job in [Job task], but at times needed to go home because of how he was feeling.
The applicant said it would be very hard for him to work, “once you are not a Muslim”. He had a fear that Punjabis were unwelcome and as a family needed to leave Quetta. There was a break in at their old house when his father was still in Quetta. He did not fear while in Punjab, but if outside of Punjab he would be afraid.
I asked whether if returned to Pakistan he would select Punjab as a place to live. He said this could be the only place, he would not have the fear of anti-Punjabi persecution anywhere in Punjab.
He said it would be hard to work without family support and once people find out he is a non-Muslim “you can’t hide it forever.” If he were working with a Muslim and not following practices like mosque attendance eventually they will find out he is non-Muslim, and people are not happy to have anything to do with non-Muslims. They will not do business with them.
I noted that there was a delay in seeking protection. He arrived in 2014 in Australia and sought protection in 2016. This was because of [Ms A] and the family issue.
He was following some Islamic practices at the time and had a relationship outside of marriage.
He is not currently in a relationship with anyone. He has not had relationships since [Ms A].
I asked if he wanted a partner one day and he said that he did. He would like to marry eventually. I asked what cultural background his future partner should have or if it was not an issue for him. He said it was not an issue for him as long as they do not question his beliefs. He would not be with a Muslim though.
I referred to the argument he had with the Iman as referred to in the delegate’s decision. He said this Iman told him to get out and became angry. This happened in Lahore. The applicant had stated his support of the security forces’ action. He was thrown out. They thought he was underaged and threw him out. This was in Shia Mosque. People there do not dispute what an Iman says.
I asked how he could be seen as a failed asylum seeker. He said even if he did not tell people, maybe through some source they would find out. The authorities might find out. He confirmed that he had renewed his passport and had had no troubles. He has another seven years on this passport. The applicant told the Pakistan passport section in their Australian mission that he was on a bridging visa, and did he not mention protection to them.
He is in a [Age range] male category, and people are looking to brainwash people in the Mosques. This had happened to someone he knew, a neighbour in Quetta – he grew a beard and refused to allow TV viewing. He disappeared with traditionally clad people, and has never been found. He is presumed to have been radicalised.
I pointed out the younger men tend to be more pleasure seeking, as general rule. He said a more mature person might raise questions and attract attention. He might expose radicalised people, as he is free thinker.
He wears western style clothing. He does not have a religious-styled beard. I asked if such dress presents a problem. He said it did not, as long as it was not extreme.
I discussed belief and atheism and asked if the applicant was a cultural Muslim or a Muslim in name only. He said no. He changed his mind about that when he was in Australia. I asked if there was a god or life force or that all there is was the physical. The applicant said that he had recently been talking with a friend and said that he did not believe that there was any god that existed.
I asked if anything happens after one’s death or that was the end of the matter. He said he thought that death was the end of your journey. He started to believe this in Australia, “because the Koran says otherwise.”
He would occasionally go to Mosque when he came to Australia - and this was “before [Ms A].” He was new in the country and if he did not go to mosque he would stand out. His housemates had been all Muslims. He went because they went. But eventually he now longer cared. He also argued with a housemate about alcohol and the fact that he consumed it.
The Tribunal enquired as to whether people were compelled to be Muslims in Pakistan. He said there was a hatred of non-Muslims. He said maybe if they cannot convince them of Islam then they may “get rid of them.”
The Tribunal asked if in his knowledge of Islam whether here was a teaching that people should not be compelled into religion. He said the Koran said something along those lines, but also said that you should preach Islam to those where it is not present. He thought the Koran said that religion is not to be forced, it must be preached. What people interpret is up to them.
The housemates who tried to encourage him to go to Mosque and eat halal food were doing what they thought was their duty.
I asked what an atheist was to him. He said someone who does not believe in God or any spiritual being. I asked how he describes himself. He said he is someone “who does not believe in any religion at the moment”. He agreed that he was an atheist.
The Tribunal enquired as to whether he was an atheist who volunteered to others that he was an atheist and sought to persuade them. He said: “I have not been out into that situation because I am here.” He said though that if he encountered some Muslims in Pakistan “maybe I would be in that situation, at that time. But here, this is what you say is a liberal country, they don’t question. Like if you go for a drink, if you believe in God or not, they don’t question what you are doing.”
I asked if he believed that religion or Islam was a bad thing in the world. He said that as of now all the violence is in the name of religion. Attacks and personal agendas, and the Taliban were based in religion. He felt Western countries were safer because of their attitude to religion.
The applicant said that there was discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan. Churches had been burned in Pakistan. Christian were found guilty of blasphemy. They could have stopped it but they did not stop it in Pakistan.
DFAT’s most recent country report on Pakistan[1] was discussed:
[1] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 25 January 2022
RELIGION
3.28
According to the 2017 national census, Muslims comprise 96.47 per cent of the population.Of this number, an estimated 80-90 per cent are Sunnis and 10-20 per cent are Shi’a. Hindus comprise 1.73 per cent of the population, Christians 1.27 per cent, Ahmadis 0.09 per cent (counted separately from Muslims in official figures), and others (including Sikhs, Parsis, Baha’i and Buddhists) 0.32 per cent. Minority groups dispute these figures, saying they undercount minorities.
3.29
Article 20 of the Constitution provides ‘subject to law, public order, and morality, —(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions’. Article 36 guarantees ‘the legitimate rights and interests of minorities, including their due representation in the Federal and Provincial services’. The Constitution establishes Islam as the state religion. Articles 41(2) and 91(3) require that the president and prime minister be Muslim. Article 260 of the Constitution defines the term ‘Muslim’, and explicitly excludes from that definition several groups, including Ahmadis. The government sets a 5 per cent quota for hiring religious minorities (excluding Shi’a and Ahmadis) at the federal and provincial levels of government, but these targets are rarely met.
3.30
In 1979, President Zia ul-Haq introduced The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, also known as the ‘Hudood Ordinances’, prohibiting consumption of alcohol, sex outside marriage and pornography. Non-Muslims are exempt from the alcohol ban; the other bans apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. 3.31 Religious extremism and intolerance are on the rise in Pakistan. A record number of blasphemy cases were filed in 2020, and public and online hate speech has increased. While the number of sectarian attacks decreased from 2013-20, in line with an overall improvement in the security situation, violence has recently increased, and attacks on religious minorities, their places of worship and festivities continue. Multiple interlocutors told DFAT the government overlooked religious extremism to avoid antagonising powerful religious lobbies (such as the TLP).
3.31
Religious extremism and intolerance are on the rise in Pakistan. A record number of blasphemy cases were filed in 2020, and public and online hate speech has increased. While the number of sectarian attacks decreased from 2013-20, in line with an overall improvement in the security situation, violence has recently increased, and attacks on religious minorities, their places of worship and festivities continue. Multiple interlocutors told DFAT the government overlooked religious extremism to avoid antagonising powerful religious lobbies (such as the TLP).
Blasphemy
3.32
Blasphemy and other offences relating to religion are criminalised in Pakistan under Articles 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). Article 295C outlaws the use of ‘derogatory remarks’ against the Holy Prophet. The punishment for blasphemy is death. Under Article 295B, ‘defiling’ a copy of the Quran is punishable by life imprisonment, and under Article 298A, defiling ‘the sacred name of any wife, or members of the family, of the Holy Prophet, or any of the righteous Caliphs’ carries a maximum punishment of three years in prison, which may also be accompanied by a fine.
3.33
Religious conversion from Islam (apostasy) while not illegal is often seen as blasphemous and can result in prosecution under blasphemy laws, or in familial or communal violence. Article 295A prohibits insulting any religion, not just Islam, and carries a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment, which may also be accompanied by a fine. 3.34 The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) reported 200 blasphemy cases in 2020, an all-time high which has been widely linked to rising religious intolerance. Of these 35 were sentenced to death. Religious minorities are disproportionately affected: in 70 per cent of the cases the accused was Shi’a, 20 per cent Ahmadi and 3.5 per cent Christian. False accusations of blasphemy are used to settle personal disputes, as in the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2010 after a dispute with Muslim neighbours in which they refused to share water with her because she was a Christian. Bibi was acquitted and released from prison in 2018 and fled to Canada. People have been charged with blasphemy for online speech; for instance, three men were sentenced to death by an Islamabad court in 2021 for sharing ‘blasphemous’ material on social media. In July 2021, an eight-year-old boy was charged with blasphemy in Eastern Punjab after allegedly urinating in a Madrassa library.
3.35
The conviction rate for blasphemy in the lower courts is high, and judges are often under enormous public pressure to deliver a guilty verdict. A Pakistani legal expert told DFAT most blasphemy convictions were overturned by the higher courts, but an accused blasphemer was likely to spend years in prison even if the accusation was eventually found to be baseless. Judges and defence lawyers are often reluctant to take on blasphemy cases due to the personal security risks involved, resulting in appeals being delayed until a new bench is constituted.
3.36
Accused blasphemers are at risk of extrajudicial killing, before, during, and after being taken into custody. In December 2021, a Sri Lankan man was beaten to death and his corpse set on fire after being accused of blasphemy due to removing posters from the wall of the factory in Sialkot, Punjab, where he worked. During the murder his killers chanted slogans popularised by Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), an Islamic extremist group. Afterwards they posed for selfies with his corpse and shared video of his murder on social media. In August 2020 a US national on trial for blasphemy, Tahir Naseem, was gunned down in a Peshawar courtroom by a 15-year-old boy. Thousands rallied in the streets to support Naseem’s killer, and politicians visited the killer’s home and police posed for selfies with him. Extremist groups and individuals have targeted politicians, lawyers and judges who have spoken out against blasphemy laws. The former governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was assassinated by one of his bodyguards for calling for reform of blasphemy laws. Large numbers of people protested when his assassin (whom they considered a hero) was executed in February 2016.
3.37
DFAT assesses that people accused of blasphemy are at high risk of extrajudicial violence and the death penalty, and high risk of societal and official discrimination in the form of popular denunciation, unfair trials and inadequate state protection. The risks are especially acute for members of religious minorities, including Shi’a, Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus.

By being an atheist that would make him a blasphemer, he said - that is because he is a former Muslim – he was taught everything and gave up on it.
There was targeting on social media and about blasphemy incidences. A thirteen-year-old child was put in prison the applicant said. I asked if he had any social media presence and he said he was on it but did not post because he wanted to distance from Islamic issues.
I asked why he shied away from religious comment. He said in Australia it was not a problem but in Pakistan it was because you are exposed.
I asked if he tried to talked people about their Muslim religious views. He said he had discussions but would not take it to extremes, because they get quite aggressive about it. In Australia though you are protected by the authorities.
The Tribunal enquired as to whether he was an argumentative person - he said that he was. I asked if he argued with people he knew. He said if it was people who were ‘against humanity’ and ‘against my beliefs’ then his conscience would not allow him to stay quiet. When he was non – halal food eater in Australia he decided to vacate the house and get out of the housemates’ life. He could not live in this environment and lived on his own.
I discussed the following certain country information from the below:
·     2015 polling which showed that 1 in 10 Pakistanis identify as being ‘not religious’[2]
·     Atheism is not illegal in Pakistan, but publicly speaking about atheism can be seen as apostasy[3]
·     In Pakistan there are atheists[4] and agnostics
·     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.[5]
[2] ‘Losing Our Religion? Two Thirds of People Still Claim to Be Religious’, Gallup International (Bulgaria), 8 June 2015
[3] 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 7 DFAT 2022
[5] 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. I asked how the applicant he might fall into these groupings and face lesser risk. 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 en masse, let alone a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
The applicant said that even if people were going only once a month or once a year to Mosque or a religious event they are believers and are considered Muslims. I queried whether rare observance amounted to genuine belief. He referred to Eid and Ramadan. Yet it seemed to the Tribunal that there was a significant minority of people that did little if any observance. He said some might not be very religious but are still considered to be believers. He said he was born Muslim and gave it up.
I note that there is no suggestion that failure to attend any festival or make routine observance necessarily led to consequences in and of themselves. The Tribunal was unable to distinguish between a lack of religious enthusiasm and the absence of belief and finds that the applicant is relying upon the contention that he is a lapsed former believer that turned away from the faith.
I noted that for example tourists are sometimes advised not to give offence during Ramadan by eating tor taking refreshments in a noticeable way, and I noted that this might be a reasonable proposition. [6] Perhaps this was reasonable for him as well. He answered that it was different for tourists. I asked that people did not breach the customs out of respect. I asked if he would break those rules. He said he would not go into a Mosque. If he was thirsty he would have to drink. I asked if he was trying to provoke or make a statement – he said he was not. Here he could eat when he wanted. He said he might want a non-Muslim partner.
[6] “In places where it's legal, it could still be considered offensive or insensitive, regardless of the law”. - :~:text=Non-Muslims%20aren%27t%20expected,in%20public%20during%20fasting%20hours.
I asked if he had had a Pakistan ID card. He thought it stated his religion. He said some time he would have to fill out a form and state his religion. He would not alter his personality and would not write Muslim, even though that was his heritage. He might be considered a Muslim because of his looks. But it could be that someone saw him drinking alcohol. He said he could not change his behaviour.
The Tribunal takes the view that whether he might be seen drinking alcohol visibly is in the realms of speculation and I have no level of satisfaction that he would be doing this at some point in the future. I note that alcohol by his own admission is hard to access in Pakistan. Again, whether he would or would not refresh himself by having water or similar when hot or tired during Ramadan is unknown to the Tribunal is unable to be predictive of what he would do, especially in different culture, societal norms and a unique set of dynamics.
The Tribunal is also of the view that the applicant’s identity card would previously had him or his family listed as a Muslims due to his family belief and former religion. This does not seem possible to change based on current practice. [7] Future forms or documents are not known to the Tribunal and it cannot speculate on what might or might not be needed based on the evidence given.
[7] Losing your religion?: ‘NADRA should not be deciding people’s faith’ (tribune.com.pk) “NADRA Public Relations Officer Farrukh Mushtaq said though he was not completely sure, it was “very likely” that a request by a person identified as a Muslim to change their religion would not be accommodated.”
Oral submission of the applicant’s representative was made as follows:
·     Consumption of alcohol is illegal in Pakistan. Pork is not readily available. His consumption might make him an apostate.
·     He has abandoned Islam. His risk from his family is credible and he is not exaggerating. It is not known what the family has told other people.
·     Abortion and sex outside marriage are illegal.
·     He has enjoyed liberties in Australia he is not permitted in Pakistan.
·     He has changed as a person and his father’s death solidified his opposition to Islam.
·     He cannot modify his behaviour as this is intrinsic to his identity.
·     Cultural practices such as animal slaughter he objects to.
Analysis and findings
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is someone who came to Australia as a young man in order to study. He is of Punjabi Pakistani background and ethnicity and I accept that his parents are and were of the Islamic faith and are conservative, practising Sunnis and they brought the applicant up in this faith environment.
I accept the following:
·That the applicant’s father died while taken part in Haj in recent times.
·I find that the applicant has had long-standing doubts about religion and Islam in particular. As a youth he made objections to certain Islamic practices such as slaughtering animals in a certain way and he has had an argument with an Iman and some followers and he was told to get out and people became angry. When he was non–halal food eater in Australia he decided to vacate the house and get out of housemates’ life. He has argued with Muslims especially in Australia about faith issues. He did not want to live in this environment and lived on his own.
·He objects to what he perceives a preaching of hatred against non-Muslims that occurred at Mosques and similar. He has been bullied and ostracised while, at school for not going to a prayer room and he has felt pressured to be observant in his youth. In 2011 or 2012 when at a Mosque he voiced his support of the Pakistani government's offensive against certain extremists and he was ejected from the building.
·In Australia he observed some religious practices such as mosque attendance, and halal consumption, but over time his observance fell away.
·He had a non-Muslim partner with whom had sexual relations and she conceived his child. This former partner chose to terminate the pregnancy and the parties separated.
·His contact with his family has been minimal. His mother is the more aware of what is happening in his life.
·His studies were abandoned in Australia due to family financial pressures.
·He has had bouts of drinking alcohol where on occasion he buys cans of alcoholic drink and consumes them to excess at home or in private. Stressful situations as such at the death of his father can trigger this.
·His parents were very strict and his father in particular banned television from the home because of its secular influences. His mother was somewhat less this way inclined but went along with the father on such matters.
·In Australia in recent times the applicant has had increasing objections to Islam and religion generally and considers himself to be an atheist. I accept that he does not believe in any god.
·I find that the applicant left Quetta because of the security situation for Punjabis and settled with his parents and family in Lahore in Punjab. I agree with his assessment that if he returned to Pakistan he would not face particular risk for being a Punjabi residing in Punjab and being subject to terrorist recruitment attempts.
·I find that he is currently eating non- halal foods and does not attend religious services of events any kind. He is not practicing any religion.
The Tribunal makes these findings on the other claims of the applicant:
Harm that might be faced from family
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant came from a very strict Muslim family and that his father was an authoritarian and unbending figure. With the death of his father, the profile of risk he could conceivably face from his family changed and diminished.
It is by no means apparent that any punishment his late father might have dealt out would instead be carried out by others. I have no reason to believe that in Lahore his mother and older sister residing there, or his single younger sister and married brother would harm him of report him to people who would harm him. I note that he said that his mother is a very caring person (while still being strict). That mitigates against harm.
While his mother knew about his life choices and events in Australia, I do not have a basis for finding that she would take any action. I note that the family has stopped talking to him, except for during a family crisis. I assess his claim might possibly be true that if he went to Lahore his family would not want to know him, but that they might hold him responsible for his father’s death because of this disappointment is to my mind, speculative. People react different in grief situations, and with the passage of time can have varied responses. Blame might be one of them, but I cannot see evidence that it would go beyond blame and shunning, if indeed it becomes as negative a response as that. I do not find the prospect of them taking action against him or replying to him because of his ‘responsibility’ to be anything other than speculative.
A sister was aware about the pregnancy and abortion and his mother knew, but it was to a limited, degree and the applicant was unable to determine exactly what his family knew. The Tribunal is unable to speculate on what else family members might know and as such find that this is another reason to consider the risk to be remote. I do not accept that they will inform others. I also note that relationship and the abortion are well in the past and memories inevitably fade at a certain point.
I do not have a basis to find that that the applicant’s family members will cause him harm for any reason. He may receive a cold reception and disapproval but to consider that it would be worse than this is to speculate.
Whether there would be perpetrators in the wider society
It is not apparent that the applicant’s activities and attitudes in Australia that deviate from Pakistani norms are known beyond a small number of family members. He has obtained a passport renewal from the Pakistan consulate without issue. I do not have evidence that he has not been threatened while in Australia by people in Pakistan. I do not consider his past arguments in a Mosque and similar to be live issues for him today as they were relatively minor and many years ago.
Whether he has a relationship of a romantic and/or sexual nature before marrying is again speculative. He has spoken of how he wanted a partner one day and would like to marry eventually. His future partner’s cultural background was not an issue for him, as they did not question his beliefs. He would not be with a Muslim though. Upon return to Pakistan there is little indication of what his relationship status or personal life might involve and the Tribunal cannot speculate.
While the Tribunal finds that the applicant is an atheist, the Tribunal evaluates further what a lack of belief in religion means in Pakistan.
It is evidenced from the abovementioned country information that numerous people in Pakistan are similarly inclined as the applicant. On one reckoning as many as one in ten Pakistanis identify as being ‘not religious’. I am prepared to accept the gist of the earlier mentioned surveys: 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.
Whether the people involved are declared atheists or ‘functional or implicit atheists’ (ie acting in their lives on the basis that there are no gods[8]), there are potentially tens of millions of such persons in a country with a population of 241 million people.[9] A lack of belief and/or practice appears widespread, and it appears to enable a group of people to live with little in the way of notable incident and in the Tribunal’s view is not conclusive of there being potential harm for these persons on this basis alone. Atheistic views alone do not necessarily lead to the presence of a well-founded fear of persecution.
[8] “The Nontheist or “apatheist” ‘This is someone who does not believe but also doesn’t care about religious belief, or organized atheism, or the raging debates between the two. As the researchers put it, “They simply do not believe, and in the same right, their absence of faith means the absence of anything religious in any form from their mental space.” Academic, activist or apatheist: What kind of unbeliever are you? Religion News Service (religionnews.com), Non-Belief Research in the United States (atheismresearch.com) 2023 census results ‘unanimously’ approved at CCI meeting - DAWN.COM

I note that atheism itself is not illegal in Pakistan, but publicly speaking about atheism can be seen as apostasy. Turning my mind to the prospect of speaking about atheism I note that the applicant responded when the Tribunal enquired as to whether he was an argumentative person. He said that he was argumentative. He said if it was people who were ‘against humanity’ and ‘against my beliefs’ then his conscience would not allow him to stay quiet. The Tribunal notes that he did argue with housemates about Islamic observance. He has avoided such situations since by living alone in Australia. I am of the view that if returned to Pakistan he would do similar, as this appears to be a preference he has for certain reasons. There is not an evident history of online or other public discussion about matters of faith involving the applicant. I am by no means clear on what form his discussion on religion, if any, would take in Pakistan. His views in Australia tend towards being privately held views. He is not a convert to another religion, thereby standing out. There is no facility for a “no religion” designation on government documents like a passport. It appears that his first passport read ‘Islam’ under religion. I have no evidence that this changed upon renewal.

100. The applicant has also noted that he does not have enemies in Pakistan, although he felt there might be potential enemies because of his lifestyle. I find that there are no enemies and it is speculative to assume that unknown people might take action. How visible his lack of belief and opposition to Islam is a moot point. The Tribunal is unable to speculate on his future behaviour – whether he might develop a profile of being outspoken is a matter of conjecture.
101. The applicant said it would be very hard for him to work, “once you are not a Muslim”. Yet the Tribunal is unable to conclude form the above country information that employment would be denied to him based on his described profile. The large numbers of individuals opposed to Islam or not observing Islam in any meaningful way points away from the prospect that work would be denied to him. He also noted that he is ‘not very involved’ with family like aunts and uncles and I expect this to continue.
102. While it would most likely be harder to work without family support, this is does not mean to the Tribunal’s mind that he could not. People may or may not learn that he is a non-Muslim. But the Tribunal does not accept that if certain people were aware that this necessarily means that individuals will not “have anything to do with him as a non-Muslim” and will not do business with him. Country information to the Tribunal’s mind suggests that the there is a sizeable minority of people who have no belief, or effectively no belief, and I am unable to conclude that that this alone leads to persecution. There are various stages that would need to occur first – that signs are visible of his lack of belief, that people in fact notice this and then become aware. Next, those individuals would need to have the time or inclination to harm him or report him to authorities or others. And then, in turn, those individuals would need to have the impulse to harm him. These are a series of events that could be broken down at various stages, and to the Tribunal future harm here is in the realm of conjecture.
103. The applicant observed that he was in the [Age range] year-old male category, and thought that as a more mature person he might raise questions and attract attention. He thought he might expose radicalised people, as he is free thinker. The Tribunal is of the view that this is only supposition as it was by no means clear that this was in fact what he would do – in fact the notion was presented more in theoretical terms without further development or detail.
Consumption of alcohol
104. Alcohol the applicant conceded was hard to obtain in Pakistan. The country information is that only an extremely small group, proportionate to population’s size, drink alcohol. This is estimated at one per cent of all Pakistanis.[10] Although it is possible to obtain alcohol officially it is not available for people classed as Muslims. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is someone who drinks from time to time, sometimes to excess in Australia. His likelihood of drinking in Pakistan is lesser because it is generally harder to obtain alcoholic drinks.

[10] Pakistan: Booze Battle Amid Ramadan and COVID-19 - Movendi International
105. If he did obtain alcohol his drinking style had been not to go to bars and similar but to buy cans of drink and take them home. If he did this his drinking would be quite obscured from others, lessening his risk of visibility and harm further. I find the chance here to be less than a real chance or risk of serious harm, and I have no evidence to suggest that he will change his drinking style if he consumes alcohol in Pakistan.
Mental health
106. I have given consideration to the applicant’s mental health. He was lucid throughout the hearing and could answer questions with confidence. While he was possibly stressed, he was capable of giving evidence competently.
107. I accept he has experienced difficulty, in part due to the passing of his father. As I am unable to determine exactly what mental health condition he might have and I also cannot to assess what appropriate treatment and support is needed.
108. While DFAT highlights that there is significant lack of access and a lack of mental health professionals in Pakistan it is speculative to assume that he will need them at this stage or in the future.
Returnee from the West
109. The submission has been that the applicant has adopted Western behaviours, and leads an atheistic and anti-Islamic way of life inclusive of the non-observance of Muslim rituals and customs, forming prior romantic relationships with non-Muslims and, most fundamentally, by his questioning and renouncing the teachings of Islam in favour of humanistic principles, amounting to, as would be considered in Pakistan, blasphemy or blasphemous practices that place him in the path of a real risk of serious harm.
110. The Tribunal has dealt with his matters above and has ascribed certain findings about how they are either not present or are of remote consequence, but it goes on to note that the relevant country information states[11]:
5.31
DFAT assesses that returnees to Pakistan do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination purely as a result of their attempt to migrate, or purely because they have lived in a Western country. Nevertheless, DFAT notes societal or official discrimination or violence can still occur due to the reason they attempted to migrate, or because of behaviour or opinions they displayed while living abroad.
[11] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan, 25 January 2022

111. The Tribunal for completeness finds that the applicant does not face discrimination purely as a result of his attempt to migrate to Australia or a western country more generally.
112. I do not accept that the applicant would need to make modifications of behaviour for any reason. I do not accept that cumulatively the above situations would lead to there being a real chance of serious harm.
Complementary protection
113. 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).
114. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted there is a real chance that the applicant will face persecution involving serious harm due to his atheism, western lifestyle, having a child or causing pregnancy out of wedlock and having a former partner who had an abortion, non-Halal and haram practices or any other of the above claims if he returned to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
115. In considering whether there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to Pakistan, the Tribunal has also considered the DFAT advice regarding the level of generalised violence in Pakistan, noting that in MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the 'real risk' test imposes the same standard as the 'real chance' test applicable to the assessment of 'well-founded fear' in relation to the 'refugee' criterion.
116. Consequently, and having regard to the findings of fact set out above, and considering all evidence cumulatively, the Tribunal has concluded that the risk of significant harm to the applicant from the above is remote and not real. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from extremist or terrorist groups, extremists, militants, or belligerent family members and/or their sympathisers, government forces, criminal elements or anyone else as part of the societal violence, or for any other reason, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan.
117. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is 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

120. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Justin Meyer
Member

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.
…

It is illegal to eat or drink in public in Pakistan during Ramadan.
Ramadan traditions in Pakistan - Mehr News Agency

- :~:text=Ramadan%20is%20observed%20by%20Muslims,during%20the%20month%20of%20Ramadan.

Details

AGLC: 1808695 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4802
Case: [2023] AATA 4802
Decision Date: 9 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Pakistani national. The applicant, who identified as a non-practicing Muslim of Punjabi ethnicity, claimed to fear persecution in Pakistan due to his abandonment of Islam, his critical views on religious extremism, his relationship with a non-Muslim Australian woman, and his perceived political opinions. His student visa had been cancelled, and he subsequently lodged his protection visa application while in Australia. The decision reviewed was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan for one of the five prescribed reasons, or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that his removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and guidelines concerning vulnerable persons and complementary protection.

The Tribunal affirmed its previous decision, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's mental state and his capacity to give evidence competently, the Tribunal concluded that his claims did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division’s Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons were applied in this case. The representative assisted the applicant with his case by providing written submissions and written evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant appeared to have a good understanding of the obligation to be truthful in his communication of evidence.Procedural Background to the Case Before the Tribunal. The progress of this case is as follows:Date Event details03/03/2014 The applicant was granted a TU573 (Student) visa offshore. [03]/2014 The applicant arrived in Australia on a Pakistani passport as the holder of the class TU subclass 573 visa that was valid until [2016]. The applicant has remained in Australia since this date.04/10/2016 The applicant was sent a Notice of intention to consider cancellation of Student (Temporary) (class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa under section 5116 (General Power) of the Migration Act 1958.18/10/2016 The applicant responded to the above notice through his nominated migration agent wrote to the Department of Home Affairs (then, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection).26/10/2016 The TU 573 (Student) visa held by the applicant was cancelled04/11/2016 The applicant lodged the current class XA subclass 866 (Protection) visa application and is currently onshore as the holder of a class WC subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa. The applicant’s claims, as stated to the department in 2016, were:· The applicant is currently a [Age]-year-old never married man born in Quetta in Balochistan in Pakistan. He claims to be a non-practicing Muslim of Punjabi ethnicity. His parents, a brother and two sisters reside in Lahore. The applicant claims he has not previously travelled to any other country.· The applicant came to Australia to study however he was forced to stop studying after his family's situation in Pakistan became difficult forcing his family to leave Quetta and relocate to Lahore.· While his family is "less strict in their approach to the Islamic faith" he has reached a point where he can no longer follow or be a part of the Islamic faith as he finds certain aspects of the faith and its practice deeply offensive and contrary to his core principles.· He is seeking protection in Australia as he fears returning to Pakistan, where he fears he would be regarded as a person who has abandoned his religion as a result of which he would be imputed with particular political views.· He was raised as a Muslim, however as he got older, he could "tell the difference between right and wrong" and therefore did not subscribe to the "preaching of hatred against non-Muslims" that occurred after prayers at the mosque he attended.· He witnessed youngsters being encouraged to do Jihad by people standing outside mosques targeting youngsters to do something against non-Muslims.· As a Muslim, his father encouraged him to attend the mosque however told the applicant and his siblings not to listen to these people.· If he didn't go the mosque, his father was criticised.· He was bullied and ostracised by others for refusing to go the prayer room at school and when in college. He received threats due to his open-minded thinking and way of life and was forced to dress and act the same way as his peers did.· His family has been threatened in Pakistan as they are Punjabis, residing in Quetta where they are targeted for forced recruitment by terrorist group/s.· He fears harm from the Islamic community in Pakistan for being a non-practicing Muslim; eating non-halal foods and drinking alcohol.· He would be considered anti-Islamic due to his ideas, opinions and way of life.· In Australia, he continues to practice his religion although he does not follow all the teachings of Islam.· In Pakistan, he cannot voice his opinion freely. He fears that if his views become known, he will be in grave danger.· In the year 2011-2012 when he was in Year [Number], the Imam at his mosque was talking about Jihad and stated that the attack on Lal Masjid in Islamabad, by the Pakistani security forces was wrong. The applicant claims that he stated his opinion in support of the Pakistani government's offensive at the Lal Masjid stating that the government's offensive was justified as terrorist were being bred and harboured at the Lal Masjid.· As a resulting of voicing his opinion disagreeing with the Imam, two people grabbed him and threw him out of the mosque, which incidentally was a Shia mosque.· He was already considered a non-Muslim in Pakistan. He will also be harmed for being in a non-marital relationship with an Australian, non-Muslim woman named [Ms A] who has a child from another relationship. Additionally he and [Ms A] are expecting their first child together who would be born out of wedlock. If he married a non-Muslim girl, he would be disowned by his family and society, placing him and his partner's life at risk.· He fears becoming a victim of mob violence and prosecution under Pakistan's blasphemy laws that carry the death penalty.· If forced to return to Pakistan, he fears harm for being a "Failed Asylum Seeker from a Western Country."· He fears harm from both the armed anti-government groups and the government for his political opinion. The authorities in Pakistan will not protect him as they follow Islamic rules and anyone engaged in non-Islamic activity including engaging in a relationship with a non-Muslim person will attract the death penalty under Sharia law.· He also fears harm on account of his membership of particular social groups including — "Men of Punjabi ethnicity raised in Quetta": "Men between the ages of [Age] and [Age] years old" and "Returnees from the West."· He believes he will be targeted for recruitment by terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ).· His family has already been forced to flee from Quetta to Lahore due to recent jihadist expansion into this area.· If forced to return to Pakistan, as a non-practicing Muslim, he would only be able get low paying job/s and therefore find it difficult to subsist in Pakistan.· He cannot relocate safely anywhere in Pakistan.· The applicant presented several news articles and reports about the situation in Pakistan pertaining to religion, religious intolerance, blasphemy laws and militancy.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

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.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Pakistan for one or more of the five reasons set out, and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be affirmed. I have taken into account the applicant’s mental health bearing in mind the psychological/ psychiatric evidence submitted. I have given consideration to the applicant’s mental state at the time of the hearing. He was lucid throughout the hearing and could answer questions with confidence. He was given time to compose his thoughts. He was informed of his opportunity to call for a break at any time. Although the hearing was possibly stressful, he was capable of giving evidence competently. The Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division’s Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons were applied in this case. The representative assisted the applicant with his case by providing written submissions and written evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant appeared to have a good understanding of the obligation to be truthful in his communication of evidence.Procedural Background to the Case Before the Tribunal. The progress of this case is as follows:Date Event details03/03/2014 The applicant was granted a TU573 (Student) visa offshore. [03]/2014 The applicant arrived in Australia on a Pakistani passport as the holder of the class TU subclass 573 visa that was valid until [2016]. The applicant has remained in Australia since this date.04/10/2016 The applicant was sent a Notice of intention to consider cancellation of Student (Temporary) (class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa under section 5116 (General Power) of the Migration Act 1958.18/10/2016 The applicant responded to the above notice through his nominated migration agent wrote to the Department of Home Affairs (then, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection).26/10/2016 The TU 573 (Student) visa held by the applicant was cancelled04/11/2016 The applicant lodged the current class XA subclass 866 (Protection) visa application and is currently onshore as the holder of a class WC subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa. The applicant’s claims, as stated to the department in 2016, were:· The applicant is currently a [Age]-year-old never married man born in Quetta in Balochistan in Pakistan. He claims to be a non-practicing Muslim of Punjabi ethnicity. His parents, a brother and two sisters reside in Lahore. The applicant claims he has not previously travelled to any other country.· The applicant came to Australia to study however he was forced to stop studying after his family's situation in Pakistan became difficult forcing his family to leave Quetta and relocate to Lahore.· While his family is "less strict in their approach to the Islamic faith" he has reached a point where he can no longer follow or be a part of the Islamic faith as he finds certain aspects of the faith and its practice deeply offensive and contrary to his core principles.· He is seeking protection in Australia as he fears returning to Pakistan, where he fears he would be regarded as a person who has abandoned his religion as a result of which he would be imputed with particular political views.· He was raised as a Muslim, however as he got older, he could "tell the difference between right and wrong" and therefore did not subscribe to the "preaching of hatred against non-Muslims" that occurred after prayers at the mosque he attended.· He witnessed youngsters being encouraged to do Jihad by people standing outside mosques targeting youngsters to do something against non-Muslims.· As a Muslim, his father encouraged him to attend the mosque however told the applicant and his siblings not to listen to these people.· If he didn't go the mosque, his father was criticised.· He was bullied and ostracised by others for refusing to go the prayer room at school and when in college. He received threats due to his open-minded thinking and way of life and was forced to dress and act the same way as his peers did.· His family has been threatened in Pakistan as they are Punjabis, residing in Quetta where they are targeted for forced recruitment by terrorist group/s.· He fears harm from the Islamic community in Pakistan for being a non-practicing Muslim; eating non-halal foods and drinking alcohol.· He would be considered anti-Islamic due to his ideas, opinions and way of life.· In Australia, he continues to practice his religion although he does not follow all the teachings of Islam.· In Pakistan, he cannot voice his opinion freely. He fears that if his views become known, he will be in grave danger.· In the year 2011-2012 when he was in Year [Number], the Imam at his mosque was talking about Jihad and stated that the attack on Lal Masjid in Islamabad, by the Pakistani security forces was wrong. The applicant claims that he stated his opinion in support of the Pakistani government's offensive at the Lal Masjid stating that the government's offensive was justified as terrorist were being bred and harboured at the Lal Masjid.· As a resulting of voicing his opinion disagreeing with the Imam, two people grabbed him and threw him out of the mosque, which incidentally was a Shia mosque.· He was already considered a non-Muslim in Pakistan. He will also be harmed for being in a non-marital relationship with an Australian, non-Muslim woman named [Ms A] who has a child from another relationship. Additionally he and [Ms A] are expecting their first child together who would be born out of wedlock. If he married a non-Muslim girl, he would be disowned by his family and society, placing him and his partner's life at risk.· He fears becoming a victim of mob violence and prosecution under Pakistan's blasphemy laws that carry the death penalty.· If forced to return to Pakistan, he fears harm for being a "Failed Asylum Seeker from a Western Country."· He fears harm from both the armed anti-government groups and the government for his political opinion. The authorities in Pakistan will not protect him as they follow Islamic rules and anyone engaged in non-Islamic activity including engaging in a relationship with a non-Muslim person will attract the death penalty under Sharia law.· He also fears harm on account of his membership of particular social groups including — "Men of Punjabi ethnicity raised in Quetta": "Men between the ages of [Age] and [Age] years old" and "Returnees from the West."· He believes he will be targeted for recruitment by terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ).· His family has already been forced to flee from Quetta to Lahore due to recent jihadist expansion into this area.· If forced to return to Pakistan, as a non-practicing Muslim, he would only be able get low paying job/s and therefore find it difficult to subsist in Pakistan.· He cannot relocate safely anywhere in Pakistan.· The applicant presented several news articles and reports about the situation in Pakistan pertaining to religion, religious intolerance, blasphemy laws and militancy.

Decision

Reasons for decision

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

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Pakistan for one or more of the five reasons set out, and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be affirmed. I have taken into account the applicant’s mental health bearing in mind the psychological/ psychiatric evidence submitted. I have given consideration to the applicant’s mental state at the time of the hearing. He was lucid throughout the hearing and could answer questions with confidence. He was given time to compose his thoughts. He was informed of his opportunity to call for a break at any time. Although the hearing was possibly stressful, he was capable of giving evidence competently. The Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division’s Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons were applied in this case. The representative assisted the applicant with his case by providing written submissions and written evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant appeared to have a good understanding of the obligation to be truthful in his communication of evidence.Procedural Background to the Case Before the Tribunal. The progress of this case is as follows:Date Event details03/03/2014 The applicant was granted a TU573 (Student) visa offshore. [03]/2014 The applicant arrived in Australia on a Pakistani passport as the holder of the class TU subclass 573 visa that was valid until [2016]. The applicant has remained in Australia since this date.04/10/2016 The applicant was sent a Notice of intention to consider cancellation of Student (Temporary) (class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa under section 5116 (General Power) of the Migration Act 1958.18/10/2016 The applicant responded to the above notice through his nominated migration agent wrote to the Department of Home Affairs (then, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection).26/10/2016 The TU 573 (Student) visa held by the applicant was cancelled04/11/2016 The applicant lodged the current class XA subclass 866 (Protection) visa application and is currently onshore as the holder of a class WC subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa.