1813842 (Refugee)

1813842 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3307 (16 June 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1813842
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Meena Sripathy
DATE:16 June 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 16 June 2021 at 5:35pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – Federal Court remittal – religion – Shia Muslim – imputed political opinion – anti-Taliban – opposed to Sunni extremist militia groups – pro-US – pro-Iran – race – Pashtun from Bangash tribe – mental illness – no family or tribe links outside Upper Kurram – harassed by Taliban – relatives killed and injured – current health and psychological state – reasonableness of internal relocation – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 46A, 65, 91R, 91S, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MZYLH v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 888
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18
SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa on 11 July 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 9 August 2012.
The Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) affirmed the delegate’s decision on 22 February 2013 (the first RRT). [In] 2014 the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) quashed the decision of the first RRT and issued a writ of mandamus that the application for review should be reconsidered and determined according to law.[1]
[1] [Deleted]
The matter came before the Refugee Review Tribunal (differently constituted) for reconsideration (the second RRT), and on 23 February 2015 the second RRT affirmed the delegate’s decision. The Federal Circuit Court (FCC) dismissed an application for judicial review of that decision [in] 2016. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia, and [in] 2018 the Federal Court set aside the decision of the FCC, quashed the decision of the second RRT and directed the Tribunal to review according to law the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant[2]. This matter is now before the Tribunal for reconsideration.
[2] [Deleted]
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 April 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Pashto and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. If the Tribunal finds that the applicant faces a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or real risk of significant harm, in his home area, it must consider whether it is reasonable, in the sense of practicable, for the applicant to relocate elsewhere in the country where, objectively, there is no appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal’s assessment of risk of harm for the purposes of both the refugee and complementary protection criteria, is a forward looking test and must consider the facts and circumstances existing for the applicant and the country of reference now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
The focus of the Convention definition is not upon the protection that the country of nationality might be able to provide in some particular region, but upon a more general notion of protection by that country: Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 per Black CJ at 440-1. Depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, it may be reasonable for a person to relocate in the country of nationality or former habitual residence to a region where, objectively, there is no appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution. Thus, a person will be excluded from refugee status if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, to expect him or her to seek refuge in another part of the same country. What is ‘reasonable’ in this sense must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country. However, whether relocation is reasonable is not to be judged by considering whether the quality of life in the place of relocation meets the basic norms of civil, political and socio-economic rights. The Convention is concerned with persecution in the defined sense, and not with living conditions in a broader sense: SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne & Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
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.
The most recent report from DFAT is the Country Information Report for Pakistan dated 20 February 2019. As discussed in the reasons below, the Tribunal has considered this report, together with other relevant country information, including country information referred to by the applicant’s representative.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Information contained in the application forms lodged with the Department indicate the applicant was born in [year], in [Town 1], Khurram Agency, Pakistan. He speaks, reads and writes Pashto and Urdu. He has parents and [number siblings] and a cousin in Pakistan, and one brother in [Country 1]. He lived in his home village in [Town 1] from birth until July 2011. He stayed for several days in Peshawar, and spent several months each in Lahore and Karachi prior to coming to Australia. He departed Pakistan from Lahore International Airport for [Country 2] and travelled through [other countries] on route to Australia where he arrived by boat [in] February 2012. He completed school to higher secondary certificate level in [year] in [Town 1] and has worked as a farmer in [Town 1] and [seller] at vegetable markets in Lahore and Karachi.
In a statutory declaration dated 2 July 2012 provided with his application, the applicant stated that he left Pakistan because the situation in [Town 1] in the Kurram Agency has deteriorated significantly since 2007. He stated Shia Muslims are being targeted for no other reason than their religion. As a practising Shia Muslim he had a number of personal experiences which left him with no option but to flee Pakistan. In August 2008 he was working on his family farm with his father. His cousin and friend, [Mr A], a practising Shia who worked as [an occupation], went missing. Two days after [Mr A] went missing his father received a telephone call from an anonymous source demanding 20 lakhs for his return. The applicant’s father tried to arrange to sell some land, but three days after the ransom demand the police found the headless body of [Mr A]. He was executed because he was a Shia Muslim. The applicant stated that a letter was found on his body warning other Shia Muslims not to support the local police and military operations against the Taliban. The applicant’s family was devastated. Later that year, the applicant’s family received news that there had been a blast at [a] Bazaar. They heard later that the applicant’s cousin, [Ms B], who was travelling back from her studies in Islamabad and was [near] [the] Bazaar had been injured in the blast and [was injured] as a result of [shrapnel].
The applicant’s family owns a farm in their village which had two locations. The larger block provided for most of their revenue and was surrounded by large mountains located on the Afghanistan side of the border. The mountains were used by the Taliban to hide and they constantly launched attacks from the mountains. As a result of a number of attacks from rifles as well as rocket propelled grenades, a number of villagers had been severely injured. When they went to work on their land they did not know if they were going to be blown up. As a result of the severity of the attacks, the applicant had to stop working on the land in 2010. He then tried to look for work in the Kurram Agency, but constant terrorist attacks and targeted killings made it impossible for businesses to operate. After a year of trying to find work, the financial pressures escalated and he had to start work on the large block again, but after another three months of sniper attacks and rocket grenade attacks he had to stop work again because it was only a matter of time before he was killed. The applicant felt that as a result of personal attacks suffered by his family and Shia Muslims generally he had no other option but to flee Pakistan to save his life. The applicant stated that the roads were blocked by the Taliban and he had to travel into Afghanistan to make his way into Peshawar, which took two days.
In relation to relocation within Pakistan, the applicant stated that his Pakistan National Identity Card shows that he is from [Town 1] and people can easily identify that he is a Shia Muslim if he is forced to show it to the authorities. As a practising Shia Muslim he often takes part in the Ashura festival which occurs ten days after Muharram. During the festival Shia Muslims cut themselves with chains with small blades on their backs, chest and head. This is a process of mourning. The applicant stated that he has done this often and as a result he has very prominent scars on his back. The applicant stated that the Taliban lift up the shirts of people to check for scars and he will be easily identified as a Shia Muslim if he is asked to lift his shirt. The applicant also stated that he cannot live elsewhere in Pakistan because he does not have family throughout Pakistan, and his only family resides in [Town 1]. He does not have a support network in Pakistan he can rely on if he is forced to return. He also has limited skills which he can use to obtain meaningful employment. He further stated that the unemployment rate in Pakistan is very high and it will be impossible for him to find employment.
He fears he will be killed if he returns to Pakistan. He fears harm from the Taliban and other Sunni Muslim extremist groups and he will be persecuted because of his Shia Muslim religion and because he is from a particular social group of Shia Muslims who have fled Pakistan. He will also suffer ongoing dispossession of land if he is returned.
The applicant provided a newspaper report, dated [in] 2008, stating that the body of [Mr A] of the Kurram agency was [found] with a letter on his body stating that those who had killed people in [Town 1] would suffer the same fate.
The applicant was interviewed by the delegate on 11 July 2012. A recording of the interview is included in the Department file. At the interview the applicant claimed that threatening letters were dropped in his area by the Taliban and is family received two such letters. The Tribunal observes that the recording of the interview included in the Department file is incomplete, stopping abruptly at the 67 minute mark prior to the conclusion.
First RRT review process
On 16 and 27 November 2012 the applicant’s representative provided submissions to the first RRT. The applicant appeared before the first RRT on 19 November 2012 to give evidence and present arguments. At the hearing the applicant claimed extremists came looking for him at the market where he worked. He claimed they looked at him suspiciously and followed him and this caused him to leave Karachi. The applicant also mentioned a person from [Town 1] who went to Islamabad and was attacked but provided no source for this information.
The first RRT accepted the applicant as a credible witness and accepted his claims that he suffered harm in Pakistan in the past, including that his cousin was kidnapped, money was demanded for his released and then he was killed; his family received threatening letters; and another cousin was injured in a bomb blast at a bazaar. The first RRT found there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm in [Town 1] and Kurram Agency for reasons of his religion and imputed political opinion, however it concluded that he could reasonably be expected to relocate to Karachi where objectively there was no appreciable risk of the feared persecution. A copy of the first RRT’s decision record is before the present Tribunal.

The first Tribunal’s decision was quashed by the Federal Circuit Court on the basis that the Tribunal did not correctly apply the relocation principle and s36(2B) to the applicant’s claims for protection, in that it failed to take into account his particular circumstances in considering whether it was reasonable , in the sense of practicable, to expect the applicant to relocate.
Second RRT process
On 16 December 2014, 16 February 2015 and 19 February 2015 the applicant’s representative provided submissions, including recent news reports relating to violence in [Town 1] and targeting of Shias.
The applicant appeared before the second Tribunal on 6 February 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. At this hearing he referred to his uncle being [well known] in [Town 1]. He stated he feared that Sunnis previously residing in [Town 1], including some who knew his uncle, were now scattered across Pakistan. These people had contacts with the Taliban and could identify him as a Shia from [Town 1]. He claimed that Shias in [Town 1] looked different from other [Shias].
The second RRT also accepted the applicant as a credible witness and accepted his claims that his cousin was kidnapped and subsequently beheaded, the family received ransom demands and threatening letters and another cousin was seriously injured as a result of a bomb blast. It accepted that he was fearful in [Town 1] given the country information supporting that there had been considerable violence in [the Upper Kurram] since 2007. While the second Tribunal noted that there had been some stabilisation in the region since 2011, it accepted the situation in [Town 1] remained volatile and unstable and it accepted he faced a real chance of persecution for reasons of his Shia religion if he returned to [Town 1] in the Upper Kurram in the reasonably foreseeable future, and went on to consider relocation. The second Tribunal concluded that the applicant could reasonably relocate to Islamabad or Rawalpindi. A copy of the second RRT’s decision record is before the present Tribunal.
The Federal Court, on appeal from a dismissal by the Federal Circuit Court, quashed the second Tribunal’s decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to consider the impact of its own finding that there were increasing attacks on Shias on the risk of harm to the applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future and in this way failed to apply the correct approach in the operative part of its reasons on the relocation issue.[3] Specifically the Court held the second Tribunal fell into error by failing to assess what might occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Evidence before the present Tribunal
[3] [Deleted]
On 6 October 2019 the applicant’s representative submitted the following documents:
§Cover letter stating that the applicant has held no visa since mid 2015, and his mental health has significantly deteriorated in recent years. He is ineligible for a visa due to s46A, and to date the Minister has not exercised his discretion to invite the applicant to apply for a visa. The representative is trying to arrange a psychiatrist report.
§Statement dated 5 October 2019 from the applicant regarding his circumstances at that time. He has been without any visa since August 2015 and has consequently had no right to work or access to social security or Medicare. He has had to rely on assistance from friends for food and accommodation. He has lost all hope for the future. He also has lost contact with his family in [Town 1] because they do not understand his situation here. His family live a simple life in [Town 1]. The area remains dangerous for Shias and they fear the situation will worsen again. He has been unable to financially assist them because he is not working, and so he has disappointed them. If he returns his family will have to care for him. He has no skills and there is no work there for a Bangash/Turi Shias from [Town 1]. He has no relatives outside of [Town 1] and he fears he will become destitute. He has not survived well in Australia since his arrival, contrary to what the previous Tribunals found. Since he has had no visa his mental health and general well being has deteriorated.
On 20 November 2019, the applicant’s representative submitted detailed submissions and a report dated 11 December 2019 (sic) from [Mr C], Psychologist, [Clinic 1].
The submissions address the applicant’s claims for protection and provide country information and arguments in support of his review. In summary, it is submitted the applicant fears persecution on the basis of his ethnicity (Pashtun from Bangash tribe); religion (Shia); actual and implied political opinion (Pashtun, Shia Muslim from [Town 1] who are collectively known to actively oppose Sunni extremist militia groups such as Tehreek-e-Taliban (TeT), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), Sipah-e-Sahaba (SeS) and ISIS and imputed as pro-US and pro-Iran) ; membership of a particular social group (Pastun, Shia Muslim, member of Bangash tribe from [Town 1] with no family/tribe links outside Upper Kurram). Additionally it is submitted he has a new sur place claim, not previously articulated: membership of a particular social group - Pastun, Shia Muslim, member of Bangash tribe from [Town 1] who, due to circumstances beyond his control, has become seriously mentally unwell, unemployed for a significant period of time and estranged form his family in [Town 1], Pakistan. The applicant fears serious harm amounting to persecution in the form of one or more of the following: significant physical harassment, ill treatment; significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist; substantial discrimination amounting to a denial of fundamental human rights; cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment; degrading treatment or punishment. He fears members of Sunni extremist groups and as the Pakistani state is failing to protect him from them they are also his persecutors. It is submitted that he faces a real chance of harm in all areas of Pakistan and there is no effective protection available. It is also submitted that he fears his mental health will worsen and he will be unable to obtain adequate mental health care, and his family will not be able to adequately care for him financially or emotionally and he will become destitute.
It is noted that in all previous decisions, the basis for finding he can reasonably relocate was that he was healthy, independent and resilient, but this is no longer the case and a fresh assessment of his situation is required. It is submitted the applicant’s current health and psychological circumstances are relevant to his ability to reasonably and practically relocate or return to his home village. Reference is made to the attached psychological report and diagnoses contained therein. He will suffer significant economic and personal hardship if returned that will threaten his capacity to subsist and result in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The submissions acknowledge there has been a steady decline in sectarian conflict in Pakistan since the implementation of the National Action Plan to confront terrorist activities, but argues the majority of reports support that long-term, sustainable reconciliation along the Sunni/Shi’a schism has not yet been achieved and a degree of fragility to the current security arrangements continues to exist, citing the 2019 DFAT Report and 2018 European Asylum Support Office’s (EASO) Report, among other sources.
The submissions refer to the applicant’s specific identity as a Bangash Shi’a from [Town 1] being evident by a number of immutable personal characteristics: including his [Town 1] accent, National ID card (NIC) with his [Town 1] address, his attendance and participation at Shi’a mosques and Ashura ceremonies including self-flagellating. He would have to use his NIC on an almost daily basis as a stranger in a new city, by necessity and for example, to purchase a SIM card, rent a house, access the internet, electricity and find sustainable employment and seek medical care.
The submissions also argue that global factors must be taken into account when assessing the risk for Shia Turis and Bangash throughout Pakistan, and refer to various sources of supporting country information, including the DFAT report. It is submitted the country information reflects that there is a real chance that risk of harm for [the applicant] existing into the reasonably foreseeable future, based on the regularity of attacks in the past and the ongoing and variable security risks into the future and until such time that there are independent reports reflecting there is long-term, meaningful stability in Pakistan and the former FATA region then the past must be a reliable means of predicting future persecution for Bangash/Turi Shiites in the region and greater Pakistan. It is further submitted that [the applicant] is unable to return to [Town 1], Upper Kurram due to the risk of ongoing conflict in the region, inadequate health services, limited employment opportunities and his family being unable to provide for him. Evidence of recent incidents in [Town 1] and Upper Kurram is provided.
The submissions provide arguments and evidence relating to the applicant’s capacity to subsist and access adequate mental health care, noting sources that refer to the devastation in FATA due to years of conflict, leading it to remain one of the poorest regions of Pakistan. Reference is made to recent attempts to develop Kurram economically, but it is not clear any of these plans will turn into definitive fruitful actions providing long term security. Having regard to the available evidence, it is submitted the applicant has a real chance of coming to significant harm in [Town 1], Upper Kurram in the foreseeable future, including being unable to secure meaningful employment and access adequate and affordable medical care.
The submissions also address the complementary protection criteria, arguing the risk of the above harm is faced by the applicant personally due to his Shia religion, his Bangash ethnicity, his former residence being [Town 1], Upper Kurram Agency, having no tribal or familial support outside of his home region, having a serious mental condition requiring ongoing treatment and being unqualified with minimal work experience and the State will not protect him from the harm because of these reasons and therefore should be taken to intend the harm caused.
The submissions refer to MZYLH v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 888 (17 November 2011), and argue that this is relevant to the applicant’s case as his particular circumstances now include, arguably at the forefront, an assessment of the reasonableness, in a practical sense, of his capacity to relocate within Pakistan given his poor state of mental health, the need for ongoing treatment and estrangement from his family. Country information establishes he would have limited capacity to seek effective assistance and treatment enabling full recovery. References to country information on the limited extent and availability of mental health services in Pakistan are provided.
In addition to the inadequacies of the Pakistani health system to deal with people with mental illnesses the submissions argue it is not reasonable or practical for the applicant to relocate as he will be unable to find reasonable and sustainable work for reasons of his poor mental health; limited work experience in Pakistan, long term unemployment in Australia; lack of skills or qualifications; lack of tribal or family connections outside [Town 1]; risk of severe discrimination and serious harm due to this profile as a Pashtun, Shia Bangash from [Town 1], Upper Kurram.
On 23 April 2021, the Tribunal received an updated report from [Mr C], Psychologist from [Clinic 1] dated 22 April 2021. Mr [C] confirms he has been seeing the applicant for psychological consultation and treatment since October 2019. He provides details of his observations of the applicant’s physical and mental state during sessions. He states the applicant’s scores on the DASS scale administered in March 2021 were ‘extremely severe’ in all three scales of depression, anxiety and stress. The report states: [the applicant]’s psychosocial history, test results, clinical presentation and mental status examination are consistent with a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, with mood-congruent psychotic features, severe 296.34 (F33.3). He also presents with symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder including increased agitation, nightmares and heightened reactivity. The psychologist states the following opinion regarding the risks associated with the applicant returning to Pakistan, that it would pose a significant detriment and risk to [the applicant]’s psychological wellbeing as his symptoms would likely be exacerbated to a greater level of psychosis, which would also increase his risk of suicide. [The applicant] presently experiences infrequent suicidal ideations. A suicide risk assessment was conducted and [the applicant] has a high risk of suicide due to ideations and risk factors that include his mental state, hopelessness, feelings of shame, paranoia of returning to Pakistan, diminished self-esteem and confidence, financial difficulties, lack of access to medical treatment; [the applicant] also has reduced protective factors including no strong perceived social support, lack of access to family, diminished ability to seek and access help. He observed that the applicant’s condition has deteriorated over the course of treatment and opined that ongoing and future treatment is necessary to ensure his depressive and associated symptoms are not worsened and to reduce and manage his risk of suicide.
Tribunal hearing
At the hearing, the applicant stated at the outset that given how long this application has been taken, he has suffered mental problems and has, among other issues, problems sleeping, and with his memory. The Tribunal noted this and confirmed it also has the two reports from his psychologist, and will take these circumstances into consideration when assessing his evidence as well as in his claims. He confirmed that he has been seeing this psychologist regularly since 2019, and his next appointment will be after Ramadan. He is not taking any medication at this time.
The applicant is living with 4 friends from his home area in a house in [location]. He has been there for two years or less. He does not at this time contribute to the rent, his friends pay it. They support him by providing food and shelter. He last worked around 2015, and prior to that he worked on and off since his arrival in [various jobs]. He said he had difficulties securing work because of visa issues. The applicant expressed his frustration that since his arrival some of his friends from the same area with the same issues, were granted visas and are now citizens.
In Pakistan he worked on the family farm and also in his uncle’s market stall in Lahore and Karachi on one occasion.
His family comprise [number] brothers and [number] sisters. His elder brother is in [Country 1]. The younger [number] are unmarried and live with the parents in the home village. [Number] of his sisters are married and live with their husbands in other parts of [Town 1], and the [unmarried] sisters live at home. His family manage financially with help from his brother in [Country 1] and the [younger] brothers do some labouring work. The applicant is in regular contact with his family by phone only because he does not want them to see his physical state. They are just getting by, they rarely leave the home and just manage to pass the time. He has not heard any news of any incidents or issues affecting his family since he has been in Australia, but has heard about Shia people who go missing and the government does nothing about it. The Tribunal confirmed with him that there have been no incidents or issues affecting any members of his family but, he said, it could anytime. Many people have lost family members.
The applicant confirmed he is of the Shia religion and Bangash tribe. He confirmed his village mostly comprise of Shia Bangash people. There are no particular issues with Turi Shias in his area because they are all Shia so have no reason for conflict. He is a practising Shia Muslim. He is currently fasting for Ramadan. In Pakistan he sometimes visited the mosque, as he does here in Australia. He hasn’t gone to the mosque recently due to Covid 19. He regularly participated in Ashura processions in his village in Pakistan and here in Australia, the last one was in 2019 in the city.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he left Pakistan in 2012. He said he was seeking protection like so many others. His cousin, [Mr A] was [working] when, in 2008, he was kidnapped by the Taliban and held for several days. Ransom was demanded for his return, and then they killed him and left his body by the road. The situation in his area was very bad from 2007 to 2011 with much fighting, attacks and road blocks. Another cousin [Ms B] was injured in a bomb blast in [Peshawar]. These kinds of incidents led him to be fearful for his life and eventually he fled.
The Tribunal asked if since then there were any other incidents. He said he had a family member serving in the militia force who was killed in Waziristan about 4 years ago.
The Tribunal put to him that independent information before the Tribunal indicates that since he has come to Australia and particularly in the last few years, the situation in his home area and Pakistan generally has changed significantly, with a significant reduction in terrorist attacks and violence and asked him if he wishes to comment. He said that is all lies. Many Shia are still dying and the government does not want to report it. The situation for Shia has not improved.
The Tribunal put to him that his evidence that his family have remained living in the same area and have not reported any serious incidents affecting them since he has been there may suggest that it is not as unsafe as he claims. In response he said one brother is overseas, and his other brothers and sisters are mainly staying home and his parents are elderly and stay home also. He referred to another person he heard about from [Town 1] who was returning from Quetta and was killed or went missing recently. He said the fighting has stopped but people still go missing.
The Tribunal explained that it would look carefully at the independent information and must determine if satisfied on the evidence that he faces a real chance of serious harm in [Town 1] in the foreseeable future. If so, it will have to consider whether he can live in another part of Pakistan where he doesn’t face a risk of such harm and asked him why he could not do that. He said he cannot live anywhere else because he looks different and doesn’t speak the language. His place is [Town 1] and he knows no other place in Pakistan. He has never lived elsewhere. The Tribunal put to him that he has previously stated he speaks Urdu, and that he lived in Lahore and Karachi. He said he only learned Urdu at school and never used it. He cannot live in Lahore, only rich people are there. He has no family elsewhere. Previously he went with his uncle for a short period. That uncle is now dead. His business was closed several years back and he got sick after that and died.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if any other relatives have left Pakistan in recent years. He said not to his knowledge, only he and his brother are outside the country.
The Tribunal noted he has claimed he suffers from mental health issues and asked how he thinks that will affect him if he returned. He said he will not be able to do anything if he returned, he cannot leave home. Life is like a cigarette, it burns and burns and then there is nothing left.
He said if he tries to apply for work in Pakistan, he will have to show his ID card and it shows he is from [Town 1] and this will be a barrier for him. He referred then to a bus in Gilgit that exploded 4 years ago.

The representative briefly made oral submissions that the deterioration of the applicant’s mental health is significant to his claims, and that the imminent withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan by the US and Australia is likely to have an impact on the applicant’s area because it is possible he Taliban will become stronger. The representative requested further time to provide updated country information and submissions.
Post hearing submissions
On 10 May 2021 the Tribunal received a post hearing submission from the applicant’s representative. The applicant continues to rely on previous submissions provided, and his evidence at the hearing, submitting that the applicant’s personal circumstances have not fundamentally improved or changed in the 18 months since the previous submission. These submissions address the impact of COVID 19 pandemic on the Pakistani economy and its adverse impact on the applicant’s capacity to subsist in Karachi or Lahore in the reasonably foreseeable future. Reference is made to a March 2021 report of the World Bank,[4] assessing Pakistan’s economy following COVID 19 restrictions last year. This report pre-dates the third wave of infections this year, which has resulted in even further restrictions and a warning that these could extend given the surge in cases in neighbouring India.[5] It is submitted the applicant, given his particular circumstances of chronic, long-term unemployment in Australia for reasons beyond his control, the subsequent inability to develop any specialist skills, his poor mental health and as a Bangash Shi’a Moslem from [Town 1], has a severely limited capacity to find employment, housing and health care in light of the increased socioeconomic instability in Pakistan. This is further exacerbated by the higher cost of living in cities such as Karachi and Lahore.[6]
[4] The World Bank In Pakistan. Overview. Updated 29 March 2021 BBC Covid: Pakistan enters partial lockdown as Eid nears. 8 May 2021 Accessed at: 57036022
[6] Khan, Zeb Mubarak, DAWN, Karachi, Larkana ‘most expensive’ cities for consumers of essential items, NPMC told. Accessed at: Dawn.com/news/1612811 ;
Mian, Bakhtawar, DAWN, Number of jobless people to reach 6.65m in 2020-21 17 June 2020. Accessed at:

The applicant, it is argued, faces a substantial risk of being discriminated against as a Bangash Shia from [Town 1] who suffers from poor mental health and has an ongoing need for treatment. Consequently, there is a real risk he will come to serious harm in the form of significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist, denial of access to basic services that threatens the capacity to subsist and denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind that threatens the capacity to subsist. The adverse socio-economic conditions in Pakistan are likely to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. Relevant country information in support is referred to, including recent news reports.[7] The submissions refer to reporting that the spread of coronavirus in developing nations such as Pakistan may be leading to a rise in extremism and likely increase in terrorism.[8]

[7] Hussain, Abid, BBC, Covid: fears of ‘impending doom’ in Pakistan 1 May 2021. Accessed at:

[8] The Conversation. How the Coronavirus increases terrorism threats in the developing world. 26 May 2020. Accessed at:

In conclusion, the representative submits it is not unreasonable to conclude Pakistan’s road to socioeconomic recovery will be a long one and the risk of increased terrorism activity will extend well into the foreseeable future. Based on the reasons, evidence and information referred to in this and previous submissions, medical evidence and the applicant’s oral testament at the AAT hearing, it is not reasonable or practical for him to relocate to Karachi or Lahore now, or in the reasonable foreseeable future. The representative also submits the applicant possesses a well-founded fear of being persecuted by extremist Sunni extremists, for reasons of his being a Pashtun, Bangash Shia from [Town 1], Upper Kurram Pakistan and owing to such fears, has left Pakistan and is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of Pakistan.

Independent information

Turi and Bangash tribes in Kurram District

The Turi and Bangash are both tribes comprised of ethnic Pashtuns, although the Bangash claim to be of Arab origin. The Turi tribe is reported to be predominantly or wholly comprised of Shia Muslims, while the Bangash is made up of a mix of Sunnis and Shias. It has been reported that approximately 40 per cent of the Bangash are Shia. Both the Turi and Bangash have a presence in the Kurram district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.[9]

[9] 'FATA Tribes: Finally out of Colonial Clutches? Past, Present and Future', Yousaf, F, Rasheed, H and Gul, I, Center for Research and Security Studies, June 2018, p.52, CIS7B839418820; 'DFAT Thematic Report - Shias in Pakistan', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), 15 January 2016, Section 3.6, p.6

The Bangash who live in Upper Kurram are Shia, while the clans that live in Lower Kurram and Kohat are Sunni; other Bangash clans are Shia, Sunni, or a mix of the two.[10]

[10] ‘"It's Just a Sunni–Shiite Thing": Sectarianism and Talibanism in the FATA of Pakistan’, Abou Zahab, M in ‘The Dynamics of Sunni–Shia Relationships: Doctrine, transnationalism, intellectuals and the media’ edited by Marechel, B and Zemni, S, Hurst & Company, 2013, p.180, CIS29402

According to DFAT, ethnic and tribal names can reveal a person’s tribal and sectarian affiliation as a Bangash or Turi, and some sources say Bangash Shias may be physically distinguishable from other Pashtuns and Bangash and Turi accents are easy to distinguish from other Pashtun groups.. A person’s address might also reveal their tribal or sectarian affiliation, particularly if they are from a predominantly Shia area.[11] The same report indicates that sources told DFAT that Bangash and Turi accents are also ‘easy to distinguish from other Pashtun groups’.

[11] DFAT Thematic Report - Shias in Pakistan', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), 15 January 2016, Sections 3.5 and 3.6, p.6, CIS38A801265

Turi and Bangash tribes in Kurram are referred to in the sources together as ‘Turi-Bangash’, which indicates that there is a close relationship between the two tribes[12] and Bangash Shias in Kurram face the same issues as Turi Shias.

Recent violence in Kurram Agency

[12] 'Tribes of the Kurram', Khyber.org, n.d. (accessed 25 March 2014), CIS27584 , 'Double murder sparks violent protests in Kurram', Dawn, 16 October 2019, 20191017103423; 'Rallies held in Kurram, Khyber to show solidarity witho armed forces', Tribal News Network, 23 February 2019, 20190225085853; 'Tribal people to offer any sacrifice for Pakistan: JI', Dotani, R, Tribal Post, 23 February 2019, 20190612155531; [source deleted]; 'Rehabilitation Of All Displaced People Of Kurram Agency Sought', Tribal News Network, 15 March 2017, CXC9040664176; 'Turi-Bangash displaced families want repatriation to Kurram Agency', Tribal News Network, 28 February 2017, 20200403155325; 'Afghan Kidnappers Demand Rs40 Million Ransom For Release Of 4 Traders From Kurram'. Tribal News Network, 15 March 2016, CX6A26A6E14283

Recent security reports indicate that, although violence in Pakistan has declined in recent years, militant attacks in FATA remain high. The latest DFAT Country Report for Pakistan (2019) states, in relations to the security situation generally, there was a 29 per cent decline in the number of reported terrorist attacks in 2018 (compared to a 16 per cent decline in 2017), marking a nine-year downward trend. Nevertheless, it states that Pakistan continues to face security threats from insurgent, separatist and sectarian militant groups. [13] It was observed that the security situation varies across the country, but militant attacks can occur anywhere, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, including the former FATA, reported the highest number of terrorist attacks.

[13] DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan, 20 February 2019, at para 2.67

Regarding Shia Pashtuns, the 2019 DFAT Report states the Taliban and Al Qaeda have gained significant ground in the former FATA, killing many Shi’a—especially in Parachinar, rendering Turis and other Shi’a tribes of the former FATA amongst the most vulnerable across Pakistan. Noting that they faced significant violence between 2008 and 2014, it is reported that deaths from terrorist attacks in Kurram Agency significantly increased in 2017 – with 3 specific attacks in Parachinar reported in the first 6 months of 2017, killing more than 120 people. DFAT reports that operations Zarb-e-Azb, Radd ul Fasaad and associated counter-terrorism activities significantly decreased the number and severity of attacks on Turis since then, but notes that this has also restricted freedom of movement and limited the community’s access to essential services and trade opportunities; and the military operations have displaced many Turis who, upon return, have faced extensive damage to property and crops. The DFAT report states that while minorities feel more protected, according to the media, discrimination and violence towards Shi’a tribes, particularly Turis, remains significant in Kurram Agency due to state concerns regarding Iranian influence and greater presence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.[14]

[14] DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan, 20 February 2019, at para 3.14-3.19, p26

An October 2019 Dawn report referred to a mob which had ‘set fire to three cars of Turi Bangash tribes moving towards Parachinar’.[15]

[15] 'Double murder sparks violent protests in Kurram', Dawn, 16 October 2019

DFAT states that Turis relocating from [the] Kurram Agency to access adequate services face difficulties finding employment outside of [the area] due to ethnic and religious profiling and are generally discriminated against in employment selection processes. It is noted that global Turi Shi’a networks and donation systems can assist Turis to relocate to other cities in Pakistan, though such support often relies on a senior male Turi advocate, limiting access for poorer members of the community, especially women and children. Turis leaving Kurram Agency tend to relocate to other known Shi’a areas, irrespective of language barriers, notably Wah Kant, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi.[16]

[16] DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan, 20 February 2019, at para 3.21, p26

DFAT’s assessment is as follows:

DFAT notes a trend of decreased reports of attacks against Turis in 2018 due to the improved security situation in Parachinar and Kurram Agency. However, while this trend is likely to continue in 2019, attacks and violence against Turis can, and may still occur. As such, DFAT assesses Turis in Kurram Agency still face a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups, because of their Shi’a faith. Turis in other parts of the country tend to face a level of risk similar to other non-Hazara Shi’a groups.

Other sources considered by the Tribunal are generally consistent with DFAT’s assessment. According to the Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), which compiles data from the media, field sources and official records, in 2017 there were 16 reported targeted attacks against members of Shia community resulting in 68 fatalities and 96 injured, with Kurram Agency in FATA among the locations for the majority of attacks.[17]

[17] PIPS, ‘Pakistan Security Report 2017’, (page 18), 7 January 2018,

News reports suggest that militant groups continue to operate in Kurram and security threats remain. In 2017, sectarian groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Islamic State publicised their intent to target Turi/Bangash tribesmen owing to their Shia faith and the fact that some tribesmen were involved in fighting in Iranian-backed militias in Syria.[18] TTP fighters attacked Turi villages from safe havens within Afghanistan.[19] Two cross-border shooting attacks targeting Pakistani security personnel on the Afghanistan–Pakistan border in Kurram took place in 2018 although no cross-border attacks on Shia villages were recorded.[20]

[18] 'Daesh leaflets in Kurram Agency threaten a ‘specific sect’', News International, 8 February 2017, CXC9040661620; ’Shias of Parachinar; victims of Takfiri terrorism, govt. apathy’, Mehr News Agency, 22 April 2018, 20190110132325; ‘Coming home to roost’, Daily Times, 21 March 2018, 20190110135034; 'One injured in IED blast in Kurram Agency', The News International, 13 March 2017, CXC9040664773; 'No losses in truck blast near check-post in Kurram Agency', The News International, 11 February 2017, CXC9040664774

[19] 'Four Missiles Fired Into Upper Kurram Agency From Afghanistan', Tribal News Network, 2 April 2017, CXC9040665120

[20] ‘Pakistan Security Report 2018’, Pak Institute for Peace Studies, 6 January 2019, p.63, 20190121110758; 'Two Soldiers Martyred, Five Injured In Attack From Across Afghan Border', Tribal News Network, 15 April 2018, CXBB8A1DA25627; ‘FC personnel martyred in cross-border attack in Kurram: sources’, Dawn, 2 September 2018, 20190110140608

Pakistani military operations in the area in recent years have cleared it of most Taliban and anti-Shia terrorists.[21] In February 2019, DFAT reported that Turi individuals (as opposed to groups) felt it safe to travel the Thall–Parachinar road during daylight.[22] Though acknowledging improved security conditions for Turis in Kurram, DFAT assessed that they ‘still face a moderate risk of sectarian violence’.[23]

[21] ‘Sunni Deobandi–Shi’i Sectarian Violence in Pakistan: Explaining the Resurgence since 2007’, Middle East Institute, December 2014, p.64, CIS2F827D91993; 'No organised Da'ish presence in Pakistan, says DG ISPR', Express Tribune, 1 July 2017, CXC9040669821

[22] ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Pakistan’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 February 2019, s.3.16, 20190220093409

[23] ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Pakistan’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 February 2019, s.3.26, 20190220093409

The FATA Research Centre has reported that the security situation in Kurram remained tense during 2020, ‘partly due to a slight increase in militancy related incidents and largely as a result of escalation in land disputes’ in an already fragile security situation.[24] There were reports of extremist groups having distributed pamphlets amongst the Sunni community in Kurram to encourage boycotting of social and business relations with the Shia community, and extremists were taking advantage of land disputes to promote sectarianism in the district.[25]

[24] 'Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tribal Districts Annual Security Report 2020', Irfan U Din and Mansur Khan Mahsud, FATA Research Centre, 7 January 2021, pp.8-9, 20210113125205

[25] 'Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tribal Districts Annual Security Report 2020', Irfan U Din and Mansur Khan Mahsud, FATA Research Centre, 7 January 2021, p.19, 20210113125205

The October 2020 European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Report reported the following related to the Kurram district:

-A decrease in violent incidents was observed by FRC in 2019 in this tribal district compared to 2018, with only one incident counted (compared to 3 in 2018). The same downwards trend was noted in the number of casualties in 2019 (2 compared to 21 in 2018). PIPS did not mention any ‘terrorist attack’ in 2019 in Kurram.
-In May 2020, a bomb blast occurred in an imambargah in Kurram tribal district. At least one person got injured.
-At the end of June 2020, a tribal clash between two tribes erupted and evolved into a sectarian clash according to the Nation. At least five people were killed and over 20 injured.
-According to reporting of TNN on 2 July 2020, 14 were killed and 40 injured in this tribal clash.
-On 23 July 2020, a bomb explosion occurred at a local market in Parachinar, wounding 18 people. After this incident, people protested and blamed the security forces for the violence in the region.[26]
[26] EASO Country of Original Information Report, Pakistan Security Situation October 2020, p82

Regarding the security situation more generally in Pakistan, the EASO Report confirmed a consistent decline in militant violence and attacks since 2014, since the commencement of military operations targeting insurgent threats by Pakistani security forces, particularly in the north west of the country. Commenting on this trend, Abdul Basit, research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), in July 2020 stated that a decline in militant violence is noticeable but that the threat of militancy has not disappeared. Basit mentioned that ‘the structural factors of violence —religious intolerance, abysmal socio-economic conditions and ethno-nationalist grievances —not only remain unaddressed but they have exacerbated further in recent years.’ [27]

[27] EASO Country of Original Information Report, Pakistan Security Situation October 2020, 21

The 2019 Pakistan Security Report from PIPS states :

In 2019, Pakistan witnessed a further decline in the number of terrorist incidents and consequent casualties. The statistics of Pakistan Security Report 2019 show that terrorist attacks this year decreased by around 13% as compared to 2018, and the number of people killed in these attacks plummeted by 40%. Indeed, there has been a gradual decrease in terrorist attacks and casualties since 2009 (with the exception of 2013, when a surge in sectarian violence mainly contributed to a rise in attacks and casualties). Continuous anti-militant operational and surveillance campaigns by security forces and police counterterrorism departments, as well as some counter-extremism actions taken under the National Action Plan, have apparently helped sustain that declining trend 2013 onwards. However, these plummeting numbers do not suggest, in any way, that the threat of terrorism has been completely eliminated. Certainly, most terrorist groups have been weakened but they are still present in physical and virtual spaces.
Despite an overall decrease in terrorist incidents in the country, such reported incidents from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa remain unchanged from previous years…
………..
The internal security dimension not only includes threats from hard-core radical and sectarian terrorist groups but also from groups that promote religious intolerance.[28]
[28] Volume 12, Jan-June 2020, Number 1, pages11-12.

In an email dated 6 August 2020, Michael Kugelman stated about the year 2019 that:

‘While Pakistan has managed to kill many terrorists and destroy their networks, Pakistan continues to provide an enabling environment for radicalization and extremism thanks to the far-reaching prevalence of hate speech and extremist ideologies that emanate from influential information sources ranging from school textbooks, religious leaders, and television shows. And Pakistan continues to harbor ties to terror groups that are used as assets to pursue Islamabad’s interests in Afghanistan and India. They don’t stage attacks in Pakistan, but they are present in Pakistan.’[29]
[29] EASO Country of Original Information Report, Pakistan Security Situation October 2020, 21

A July 2020 report about terrorism in Pakistan during COVID-19 stated that sectarian groups have used the pandemic to encourage sectarian hate. In May and June 2020, the frequency and intensity of militant attacks increased in Pakistan, according to the source, however, is it hard to link this increase to the outbreak of the virus. The report stated that it shows that militant groups are still able to carry out attacks and try to exploit the socio-economic instability and the preoccupation of the security forces with managing the outbreak of the virus.[30]

[30] EASO Country of Original Information Report, Pakistan Security Situation October 2020, p53, citing Amir Rana, M., Terrorism in Pakistan under Covid-19, NIOC, 24 July 2020, url, p. 19

During 2019, the process of incorporation of FATA into KPK strained relations between Pashtun tribes and authorities and prompted violent protests against amalgamation by local tribal paramilitary forces in FATA, although significant legal and governance progress toward the incorporation occurred towards the end of the year.[31] Violence and restrictions associated with local insecurity and land disputes have affected members of the Bangash tribal group in Kurram district.[32] The Bangash have been impacted by unresolved disputes over the land title and property constructed on land in FATA, and protracted conflict between interested tribal groups.[33]
Violence against Shias more generally
[31] 'The Armed Conflict Survey 2020', International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 27 May 2020, p. 279, 20200623110511
[32] Five more killed as clashes in Kurram continue’, Dawn News (Pakistan), 1 July 2020, 20200724133055; 'Clashes between rival groups in Kurram over land dispute intensify', Tribal News Network (Pakistan), 30 June 2020, 20200702144928; 'The Looming Storm in Pakistan's Kurram Agency', Jamestown Foundation, 8 March 2012, CX283247; ‘FATA Tribes: Finally out of Colonial Clutches? Past, Present and Future', Yousaf, F, Rasheed, H and Gul, I, Center for Research and Security Studies, June 2018, p. 52, CIS7B839418820.
[33] See for example: 'State of Human Rights in 2019', Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), 30 April 2020, pp. 122 & 257, 20200603194632; 'Country Policy and Information Note - Pakistan: Shia Muslims', UK Home Office, January 2019, PP. 6, 11, & 17-18, 20190522151230
Numerous sources reported incidents of violence against Shia in recent years. According to the US Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, [s]ectarian violent extremist groups continued [in 2018] to target Shia houses of worship, religious gatherings, religious leaders, and other individuals in attacks resulting in at least 41 persons killed during the year. On November 23, a bomb blast near a Shia place of worship in Orakzai District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa killed 33 people, including Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as three Sikhs, and injured 56. ISIS-K [Islamic State Khorasan Province] claimed responsibility for the attack. The 2018 Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) annual report stated that the Shia community continued to be under threat of targeted killings. The Report referred to the following incidents: in February, three persons, including a religious leader, died in a targeted firing on an Imambargah in Dera Ismail Khan; on 22 March, a Shia man was shot dead and two were seriously injured in a sectarian attack in Karachi; on 8 August, three Shias were shot dead in Dera Ismail Khan. The Shia Missing Persons Release Committee claims that around 140 Shia Muslims are missing.
The Tribunal notes the UNHCR’s Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, dated January 2017[34], states that while Shi’ite individuals are not subject to many of the provisions of the formal legal discriminatory framework which affects the non-Muslim religious groups, such as Ahmadis, they are reportedly the main target of sectarian attacks. It noted the proportion of sectarian attacks which targeted Shi’ites reportedly nearly doubled to 62 per cent in 2012-2015 compared to 33 per cent in 2008-2011 (citing the South Asian Terrorism Portal and Institute for Conflict Management, Shia Killed in Pakistan Since 2001.) Extremist Sunni militant groups reportedly view the Shi’ites as “heretics”, “infidels” and “apostates” who should be punished with death. Shi’ites are reported to be subject to violent sectarian attacks by such militant groups, which are reportedly able to act with impunity. The government has been criticized for failing to protect Shi’ite Muslims from attacks, and for allowing militant organizations to operate with impunity by failing to investigate and punish those responsible for violent attacks against Shi’ites in Pakistan.
Healthcare and Medical issues
[34] UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan Janaury 2017, p54-55
The DFAT report noted ‘Basic health care in Pakistan is free, but limited capacity, lack of funding, corruption, slow economic growth and overarching governance challenges combine to reduce quality and accessibility… Wealthier Pakistanis have access to better quality private health care. Rural areas have poorer access to health care services, compounded by a lack of infrastructure and transport facilities.[35]
[35] DFAT
The July 2017 Concluding observations of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) stated ‘The Committee is concerned at the very low level of public funding allocated to the health sector, at the insufficient coverage of the National Health Insurance Programme and at the weak public health system, which has led to a heavy reliance on private health services. It is particularly concerned at the high maternal and infant mortality rates.’
According to the WHO Mental Health Atlas 2017 profile for Pakistan, there were 11 psychiatric hospitals in the country, 800 psychiatric units in general hospitals and 578 residential care facilities, all offering inpatient care. As per the WHO’s report, there are 3,729 outpatient mental health facilities in the country, of which 3 were for children and adolescents only. There were 624 community-based (non-hospital) psychiatric outpatient facilities
In February 2020, The News International reported on mental health and suicide: ‘Psychological problems in Pakistan are widespread. According to one estimate, around 50 million people in Pakistan suffer from mental disorders. A range of psychiatric disorders have been reported, such as depression, substance and alcohol misuse, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder. According to one estimate, 36 percent of Pakistanis suffer from anxiety and depression, which is often caused by strained family and friend relations, the feeling of not fitting in the society, the unstable economic and political conditions of the country giving rise to unemployment and poverty.’ [36] The same article noted that ‘[S]eeking help for psychological disorders is problematic in Pakistan. Mental illness is often associated with supernatural forces such as witchcraft, possession, and black magic. Families often hide mental illness to prevent the patient from adverse stereotyping.’
[36] The News, Dispelling myths about mental health’, 16 February 2020
The 2020 report on mental healthcare in Pakistan noted that mental health problems were taboo and people were reluctant to reveal a mental illness[37]. The report also stated: ‘In Pakistani culture, it is commonplace to approach spiritual or traditional healers in cases of physical or mental illnesses. Faith healing is the traditional way of treatment for mental ailments in this culture, as people usually perceive mental illness to be the result of supernatural influences. Use of faith healers is irrespective of socio-economic factors as it usually depends on the person’s belief toward spiritual healing. Faith healers are a major source of care for people with mental health problems in Pakistan, particularly for women and those with little education.’
[37] Javed, A., et al, ‘Mental healthcare in Pakistan’, (p7), 2020
FINDINGS AND REASONS
This application has had a long history and the applicant has had his claims tested on multiple occasions by different decision makers over the course of the past 8 years. In assessing the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal has before it the information in the Department’s file, including his application for the Protection visa and evidence to the delegate at interview, the evidence he gave to two previous Tribunals and the evidence provided to the present Tribunal. It has also had regard to independent information referred to in previous decisions and the representative’s extensive and detailed submissions and information referred to above regarding relevant matters and conditions in Pakistan.
The Tribunal’s first task in determining whether the applicant is owed protection is to make findings of facts on relevant matters. The task of fact-finding often involves an assessment of an applicant’s credibility. In this context, the courts have made it clear that the Tribunal must be sensitive to the potential difficulties faced by asylum seekers in putting forward their claims, and that the Tribunal should adopt a reasonable approach to making its findings with regard to credibility and afford the benefit of the doubt to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant. In assessing his credibility, the Tribunal has had regard to its ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility’.
Nationality
The evidence indicates the applicant’s Pakistani passport was taken from him by [smugglers] on route to Australia. The delegate’s decision record refers to copies of the applicant’s birth certificate, national ID card, education and character certificates he provided to provide his identity. While copies of these documents are not included in the Department file the Tribunal observes no issues have been raised to date regarding the matter of his identity or nationality. He has provided consistent information throughout the processing of the application regarding his name, place and country of birth and citizenship and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is prepared to accept he is a citizen of Pakistan and Pakistan is his country of nationality for the purposes of its assessment of his protection obligations.
Finding on the applicant’s credibility
The Tribunal observes that the delegate and both previous Tribunals accepted the applicant as a generally credible and honest witness who did not exaggerate or embellish his claims. While the delegate had some concerns about the claim that [Mr A] who was killed was his cousin, the first and second Tribunals were prepared to accept this claim. Despite the substantial passage of time since his protection application was made, and the last hearing before the second RRT in 2015, and the challenges posed by his current mental health circumstances, the applicant was able to recount his claims to this Tribunal substantially consistently with his earlier accounts. To date he has never sought to exaggerate or embellish his claims. For these reasons, and consistent with previous decision makers, the Tribunal finds the applicant to be a credible witness.
Findings in relation to applicant’s circumstances and past events
Having found the applicant to be credible, the Tribunal makes the following findings in relation to his material facts and claims: It accepts he is a Shia of the Bangash tribe who was born in [Town 1], Kurram Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. It accepts that he lived and worked in [Town 1] as a farmer on his family’s lands. It is prepared to accept his claim that his cousin, [Mr A], was kidnapped, money was demanded from his family and he was subsequently killed by the Taliban in 2008, and that another cousin was injured in a bomb blast in late 2008. It accepts that he was unable to work on the family lands in these periods due to the frequency of attacks and his fears for his safety and that he had difficulty finding employment elsewhere because of the violence and this lead him to eventually seek to leave Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant left [Town 1] in 2011 to get away from the instability and violence and in this period worked in Lahore and Karachi for several months. He told the previous Tribunal, and repeated to this Tribunal, that his work in Lahore and Karachi was for his uncle’s market stall business. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant decided to leave Pakistan because security concerns made it impossible for him to work and live safely and he left the country, eventually arriving in Australia in February 2012.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claims are generally supported by independent information regarding hostilities and conflict between Turi Shias and Sunnis in Kurram Agency in the period from 2007 to 2011.[38] Sources reported between 2000 and 3000 people killed and over 3500 wounded during the conflict in this period in Kurram.[39] It accepts that the hostilities and fighting in this period destroyed much of the agency’s health, education and agriculture infrastructure, while the closure of the Thall Road devastated trade and development work in Kurram, severely damaging the economy.[40] In early 2011, BBC News reported that Pakistani security forces brokered a peace deal between the Turi and the Haqqani Network, allowing the Thall Road to reopen. However, within days of the deal, militants attacked two vehicles on the Thall Road, killing at least eight and kidnapping 15. In mid-March 2011, a similar attack on the Thall Road left at least 11 dead. Weeks earlier, “gunmen from the North Waziristan region kidnapped 20 Shia residents of Kurram”.[41]
[38] Chandran, S 2008, Sectarian Violence in Pakistan’s Kurram Agency, Pakistan Security Research Unit, Brief Number 40, 22 September, pp.5-6 < Vira, V & Cordesman, A H 2011, Pakistan: Violence Vs. Stability, Centre for Strategic & International Studies, 5 May, p.54 < Accessed 21 July 2011
[40] Khan, M.I. 2010, ‘The Pakistani tribe that is taking on the Taliban’, BBC News, 7 October – Accessed 14 October 2010 <Attachment>; International Crisis Group 2009, Pakistan: Countering Militancy in FATA, Asia Report N°178, 21 October, pp.6-8 <Attachment>
[41] ‘Convoy in Pakistan Kurram agency ambushed by gunmen’ 2011, BBC News, 25 March < Accessed 14 June 2012

100. In assessing his protection claims now, and in respect of the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal makes the following findings regarding his and his family’s current circumstances. It accepts that he is single. He has [number] siblings, including [unmarried] brothers and [unmarried] sisters, who reside in the home village in [Town 1] with his parents, and [married] sisters who reside with their husbands close by, also in [Town 1]. He has one brother who is in [Country 1]. He told the Tribunal that his uncle, for whom he previously worked, has since died, and apart from his brother in [Country 1], he has no other relatives living in any other place in Pakistan or anywhere else. The Tribunal accepts this, on the basis of his oral testimony and given its generally favourable assessment of his credibility.
101. The applicant is educated to high school level and in Pakistan worked as a farmer and vegetable trader in his uncle’s market business. He claimed to the Tribunal that he has not worked in Australia since 2015 because his permission to work ceased and in this period his mental health has deteriorated significantly. The two reports from his treating psychologist, Mr [C], whom he has been seeing since 2019, supports these claims. Mr [C]’s report gives a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, with mood-congruent psychotic features and observes the applicant also presents with symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The psychologist observes that he has over time been unable to keep employment, has limited social interactions and was not consuming adequate amounts of food, water and nutrients. The Tribunal accepts the diagnosis and opinions of Mr [C] as stated in his reports dated in December 2019 and April 2021, on the basis of the author’s qualifications and that he is the applicant treating health professional. While the psychologist’s opinion regarding the impact of the health conditions on the applicant’s circumstances in Australia relate to, and are consequential upon, his circumstances in Australia being denied work rights, experiencing social isolation and homesickness and the prolonged period of uncertainty of surrounding his visa application process, the Tribunal acknowledges his present state of mental health and the toll taken on him is relevant to the consideration of what he is capable of doing if returned to Pakistan in the reasonably foreseeable future, and in particular with regard to the issue of whether it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
Does the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason in his home region of [Town 1] ?
102. At the time the applicant left [Town 1] in 2011-2012 the Tribunal accepts the level of sectarian violence and terrorist attacks were still at a significantly high level despite some stabilisation in the region following the brokering of the peace deal between the Turi and Haqqani Network which led to the reopening of the Thall Road. The first RRT in February 2013 found, on the basis of substantial country information up to that time, there was a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm for the essential and significant reason of his Shia religion and imputed adverse political opinion as a Bangash Shia were he to return to [Town 1] or Kurram Agency. The second RRT, in February 2015, after consideration of further country information up to that time, was satisfied that despite some stabilisation in the region, the situation in [Town 1] remained volatile and unstable. It was observed that although the roads linking [Town 1] to other regions remained open at that time, it was frequently closed because of attacks by militants and there were a numerous attacks on commuters occurred during 2014. On the basis of the information then available, the second RRT concluded that there was a real chance the applicant would face serious harm upon return to [Town 1] for the essential and significant reason that he is a Pashtun Shia.
103. The present Tribunal must now consider this issue in terms of the circumstances at this time and into the reasonably foreseeable future. Above (paragraphs 72-86), the Tribunal has referred to country information relating to the situation in the Kurram Agency in recent years. This information indicates that in the period between the second RRT’s decision and 2019, there was another surge in violent attacks during 2017 with three attacks in the first 6 months of that year targeting Turi Shias in Parachinar, killing more than 120 people. In its 2019 Report, DFAT noted the trend of decreased reports of attacks against Turis in 2018 due to the improved security situation in Parachinar and Kurram Agency, however it was also acknowledged that even if this trend was likely to continue in 2019, attacks and violence against Turis can, and may still, occur. On this basis DFAT assessed in 2019 that Turis in Kurram Agency still face a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups, because of their Shi’a faith.
104. The Tribunal notes that the DFAT report is now more than two years old. Since then, information from the FATA Research Centre reports that the security situation in Kurram remained tense during 2020, and the October 2020 European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Report reported several incidents in the Kurram district from May – July, most recently on 23 July 2020, an unclaimed attack injured at least 17 people at Parachinar’s Turi Market. The 2020 Annual Security Report from the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) states, ‘The security situation continued to worsen in most districts of ex-FATA - with North Waziristan, Bajaur, and South Waziristan once again appearing to be the highest security risk areas in the country. Violence-related fatalities grew in numbers throughout the ex-FATA region.’ The report lists Kurram District as having had 8 fatalities and 19 injuries from terrorist attacks and counter-terror actions in 2020.[42]

[42] Centre for Research and Security Studies, ‘Annual Security Report 2020’,
105. The Tribunal has also considered the information and commentary referred to above and in the applicant’s submissions about the continuing threat of militancy and ‘structural factors of violence’ - religious intolerance, abysmal socio-economic conditions and ethno-nationalist grievances - that remain not only unaddressed but appear to have exacerbated further in recent years’; the strategic importance of the area, particularly in the context of the imminent withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan; and reported relocation of extremist groups such as the Haqqani Network into Kurram.
106. Other commentary has noted that during 2019 the process of incorporation of FATA into KPK strained relations between Pashtun tribes and authorities and prompted violent protests against amalgamation by local tribal paramilitary forces in FATA, although significant legal and governance progress toward the incorporation occurred towards the end of the year.[43] There are reports indicating that violence and restrictions associated with local insecurity and land disputes have also affected members of the Bangash tribal group in Kurram district.[44]
[43] 'The Armed Conflict Survey 2020', International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 27 May 2020, p. 279, 20200623110511
[44] Five more killed as clashes in Kurram continue’, Dawn News (Pakistan), 1 July 2020, 20200724133055; 'Clashes between rival groups in Kurram over land dispute intensify', Tribal News Network (Pakistan), 30 June 2020, 20200702144928; See also : 'State of Human Rights in 2019', Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), 30 April 2020, pp. 122 & 257, 20200603194632; 'Country Policy and Information Note - Pakistan: Shia Muslims', UK Home Office, January 2019, PP. 6, 11, & 17-18, 20190522151230
107. According to the most current South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) report from 2021, the security situation in Pakistan deteriorated in 2020, as compared to 2019. According to the SATP, the Security Force: terrorist kill ratio continued to favour the terrorists in 2020 as in 2019, demonstrating the stronger position of the terrorists on the ground. Not surprisingly, the impact on civilian security has been intense, with fatalities in this category increasing by 19.01 per cent with tribal elders facing increased violence. Overall terrorism linked incidents increased from 284 in 2019 to 319 in 2020. SATP reports that though Balochistan remained the epicentre of violence, there were ample signs of a resurgence of violence, after a relative peace, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (FATA). It was reported that minorities continued to bear the brunt of terrorism in Punjab, while separatism was on the rise in Sindh. [45]
[45] South Asian Terrorist Portal Pakistan Assessment 2021
108. Having regard to all of this, taking into consideration DFAT’s 2019 risk assessment and mindful of the requirement to assess the applicant’s risk of harm in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal finds that although there is a relative reduction in sectarian violence in Pakistan, the security situation is fluid and varies greatly across the country. It finds that violence against Shi’as in FATA is cyclical in nature and has strategic, tribal and sectarian dimensions. The Tribunal finds that Shi’as in FATA, particularly in [Kurram Agency], face a real chance of persecution due to their Shi’a religious beliefs. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance, in the sense of one that is not remote or insubstantial or far fetched, of serious harm for reasons of his Shia Bangash religion/tribe, and associated imputed political opinion, if he returned to [Town 1] now or in the foreseeable future. In so concluding the Tribunal observes that the applicant’s immediate family, his parents and siblings have remained living in his home region throughout this period and, to his knowledge, have not experienced targeted attacks or serious harm. However, this does not mean that they, or he if he were to return to live with them, would not face such attacks in future. There is evidence that travelling in and around the Kurram district poses risks. Living among family members and with other Turi/Bangash Shia tribe families may assist in mitigating any risk the applicant may face from attacks by militants but it is likely that the applicant will need to travel in the region to find work and this would expose him to the potential for risk of harm. The Tribunal considers such a risk of harm is not remote or speculative given the current available country information and the applicant’s particular circumstances.
109. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant would not be offered an adequate standard of protection against this harm he would be entitled to expect. While there is evidence that the Pakistani government has been focusing on improving security in the region, its efforts have had limited success because of, amongst other things, under resourcing. There is cogent country information to the effect that the Pakistani government has been unable to control increasing sectarian violence and resurgence of militant extremists in recent months. While there has been evidence of improvements in the security situation in Pakistan during 2018, 2019 and early 2020, there is also evidence of increasing anti-Shi’a sentiment as recently as March 2021. In this regard the Tribunal notes and accepts DFAT’s assessment that cycles of violence are likely to continue until the underlying conditions for militancy, such as weak executive, judiciary and law enforcement institutions, poor infrastructure and services and extreme religious ideologies and stark sectarian divisions, change.
Relocation
110. Given the Tribunal has found that the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in his home area, the Tribunal has considered if it is reasonable in all his circumstances to relocate to some other part of Pakistan where there is no appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution.
111. The Tribunal has had regard to the DFAT assessment in 2019 that most Shi’a face a low risk of sectarian violence, with the exception of high-profile Shi’a who face a moderate risk.[46] According to DFAT, internal migration in Pakistan is “widespread and common” and “[l]arge urban centres such as Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore have ethnically and religiously diverse populations, and offer some anonymity for people fleeing violence by non-state actors”.[47] The DFAT report states that Turis leaving Kurram Agency tend to relocate to other known Shi’a areas, irrespective of language barriers, notably Wah Kant, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Karachi, but also observes that Turis relocating from Parachinar and Kurram Agency face difficulties finding employment outside of Parachinar due to ethnic and religious profiling and are generally discriminated against in employment selection processes. It is noted that global Turi Shi’a networks and donation systems can assist Turis to relocate to other cities in Pakistan, though such support often relies on a senior male Turi advocate, limiting access for poorer members of the community, especially women and children. [48]
[46] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – Pakistan, 20 February 2019
[47] DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan, 20 February 2019 , para 3.72, 5.32.
[48] DFAT Country Information Report on Pakistan, 20 February 2019, at para 3.21, p26
112. In SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 the High Court endorsed the proposition that a person will not be excluded from refugee status merely because he or she could have sought refuge in another part of the same country, if under all the circumstances it would not be reasonable to expect him or her to do so. The Court further held at [24] that what is reasonable, in the sense of practicable, must depend on the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocating within their country. As Kirby J stated at [97], the supposed possibility of relocation will not detract from a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ where any such relocation would, in all the circumstances, be unreasonable.
113. The applicant has argued he cannot live anywhere else because he looks different and doesn’t speak the language. He has never lived elsewhere and only knows life in [Town 1] in Pakistan. While he learned Urdu at school he has never used it. He has no family anywhere in Pakistan outside of [Town 1], his only previous experiences living and working in Karachi and Lahore were for brief periods and with his uncle who is now deceased. He claims Lahore is where wealthy people reside and he cannot afford to live there. His representative has argued that he now suffers from severe emotional and psychological problems requiring further treatment. He has been unemployed for a protracted period in Australia and would be returning to Pakistan in poor mental health, with no skills or qualifications and no family or community support and therefore, on the basis of his current circumstances, it is not reasonable for him to relocate to any other part of Pakistan even if there is no appreciable risk of the feared harm. The representative further argues that the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on Pakistan’s economy adversely impacts his capacity to subsist in Karachi or Lahore.
114. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s identity documents identify him by tribe and place of origin and wherever he seeks to go he will be identified as a Shia Muslim from [Town 1]. This is supported by country information that confirms that Turi Shi’as may be physically distinguishable from other Pashtuns, although these differences are less significant than those between Hazaras and other Shi’a groups. The Tribunal also accepts that a Turi Shi’a may be distinguishable by name or address (if from a predominately Shi’a area). Similarly, ethnic and tribal names can reveal a person’s tribal or sectarian affiliation. DFAT also confirms that Turi accents are also ‘easy to distinguish from other Pashtun groups’.[49]
[49] DFAT Thematic Report Shi’as in Pakistan January 2016 DFAT
115. It accepts in recent years he has developed serious mental health conditions that will impact on his capacity and capability of establishing himself with no family or community support in a new place in Pakistan, even if he were to go to Wah Kant, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore or Karachi, or other urban centre that has existing Shia communities. The Tribunal acknowledges that mental illness is a relevant factor to consider when assessing the reasonableness of an applicant relocating to an area of their receiving country where they will not face a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.[50]
[50] MZYLH v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 888 (17 November 2011) at 137-138
116. The reports of Mr [C], who has been treating the applicant since 2019, indicate he suffers from Major Depressive Disorder, with mood-congruent psychotic features and presents with symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Tribunal has considered these reports and accepts, on the basis of the opinion of his treating psychologist that he needs ongoing and future treatment to ensure his conditions do not worsen and manage his risk of suicide. The country information before the Tribunal indicates the quality and coverage of mental health services in Pakistan is poor (see above paragraphs 89-93). Despite psychological problems being widespread in Pakistan with one estimate of 50 million people suffering mental disorders, very little resources are allocated in the public system for mental health care.
117. The Tribunal takes into consideration that the applicant has been unable to work for many years in Australia and his mental health has deteriorated significantly in recent years. Given his limited education, skills and qualifications, he would face difficulties finding employment in Pakistan to enable him to support himself in a new urban centre. The DFAT report indicates that Turis may face difficulties in getting access to adequate services because of ethnic and religious profiling and can be discriminated against in employment selection processes. Additionally, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has no family support anywhere outside of [Town 1] to fall back on. Although DFAT refers in its report to Turi Shi’a networks and donation systems being able to assist Turis to relocate to other cities in Pakistan, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the applicant has access to such support and therefore in his particular circumstances he would need to be able to secure employment to survive.
118. Having considered all of the above, given the applicant’s particular circumstances, including his visibility and recognition as a [Town 1] Turi/Bangash Shia and the associated profiling and discrimination in employment and access to adequate services he would face on this basis, his limited education and work background, lack of family or community support and substantial mental health issues and need for treatment and support, the Tribunal finds that it is not reasonable, in the sense of practicable, for him to relocate to another part of Pakistan where he would not face an appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution.
119. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
DECISION
120. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Meena Sripathy
Member

[2021] AATA 3307

16 June 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies