1816224 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he feared persecution in Pakistan due to his association with the Balochistan independence movement. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion. The matter was heard by Paul Noonan, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, as defined by section 5J of the *Migration Act*. This involved assessing whether the applicant genuinely feared persecution, whether there was a real chance of persecution upon return to Pakistan, and whether this persecution would relate to all areas of Pakistan. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any protest activities undertaken by the applicant in Australia were solely for the purpose of strengthening his refugee claim, and whether effective protection measures were available to him in Pakistan.

The Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding the human rights situation in Balochistan, noting reports of widespread violations, disappearances, and killings by Pakistani authorities against those associated with independence or human rights causes. It accepted that individuals with an adverse profile due to such associations face a risk of persecution throughout Pakistan. While the Tribunal identified credibility concerns regarding the applicant's departure from Pakistan in 2015, it ultimately found that the cumulative profile of the applicant, including his brothers' asylum grants and his participation in protests in Australia, created a real, albeit not substantial, chance of him being adversely profiled and subjected to serious harm for his political opinion. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's fear was well-founded and that he could not access effective protection in Pakistan, nor could he modify his behaviour to avoid the risk.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies the criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*.