1823347 (Refugee)

1823347 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 5158 (11 November 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1823347
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Michael Hawkins AM
DATE OF ORAL DECISION:  11 November 2021
TIME OF ORAL DECISION:  9:04 am (QLD time)
DATE OF WRITTEN STATEMENT:         29 November 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)that the other applicant satisfies s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Statement made on 29 November 2021 at 3:04pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion – Christian – Muslim business partner used business for drug trafficking – blasphemy allegations – Muslim extremists – internal relocation – police corruption and state protection – access to medical treatment – credibility concerns – delay in departing country – paucity of evidence provided to the Delegate – departed country legally on own passport – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5LA, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 3 August 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Pakistan, applied for the visas on 20 March 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicants are not refugees as defined by s.5H(1) of the Act and there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed to their receiving country, there was a real risk they would suffer significant harm.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Member of the same family unit
Subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in r.1.12 of the Regulations to include the wife.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicants meet the refugee criterion, and if not, whether they are entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Background:
The first-named applicant is a [age]-year-old Pakistani national and the second-named applicant is a [age]-year-old Pakistani national. The applicants are husband and wife.
The applicants first arrived in Australia together [in] February 2017 as visitor visa holders, initially to visit their daughter. They have not departed Australia since first arriving.
The applicants lodged a protection visa application on 20 March 2017. The application was subsequently refused by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs in a decision made on 3 August 2018.
The applicants applied for merits review of the delegate’s decision on 13 August 2018.
Claims:
The applicants’ claims are summarised in their protection visa application, written claims and the delegate’s decision.
The first-named applicant claims to be a Pakistani Christian from Sialkot, Punjab district in Pakistan.
The first-named applicant claims he was in a business partnership with his close Muslim friend, [Mr A]. He claims he decided to end the business partnership after discovering that [Mr A] was using the business to traffic drugs for the Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP). He claims [Mr A] did not take this kindly. He further claims the police were involved in drug trafficking with the TTP.
The first-named applicant claims that one day, he was arrested and detained by the police for nearly three months. He claims that during his time in detention, police officers repeatedly beat him, spat on him, called him foul names and threatened to kill him if he attempted to disrupt the drug trafficking business between [Mr A] and the TTP. He claims the police told him that they were waiting for orders from [Mr A] to kill him. He further claims that the police told him that they were ordered by the TTP to frame false charges of blasphemy against him and have him sentenced to death. He claims [Mr A] told him that he had to work for him in order to escape prosecution.
The first-named applicant claims he fled Pakistan for Australia because he feared for his life and he feared being arrested and killed by the police or prosecuted by the Rangers due to the illegal business.
The first-named applicant claims he cannot return to Pakistan, because he fears that he will be killed or physically harmed by the Taliban and/or Muslim extremists due to his Christian beliefs. He claims there is no place in Pakistan where he could live peacefully without interference from the TTP, [Mr A], the Rangers or the police.
Pre-hearing submissions dated 25 October 2021
The applicants’ representative provided written submissions to the Tribunal on 25 October 2021.
The representative submits that the applicants are Christians and they were a politically active family in Pakistan. She submits the first-named applicant aided the churches’ community services and supported his relatives during their election campaigns so that they could obtain minority seats in the Punjab Parliament.
The representative submits the first-named applicant had [a] business called “[Business 1]” and he subsequently entered into a business partnership with a Muslim and childhood friend, [Mr A]. She submits that initially, it was an unregistered partnership and then the partnership was registered [in] December 1996.
The representative submits that over time, the first-named applicant discovered through his interactions with [Mr A] that he was helping transport illicit drugs for the Taliban from Peshawar to Lahore. She submits that this escalated and [Mr A] became fully involved with the Pakistani Taliban’s drug trafficking business. She submits [Mr A] used [the] shop to store the drugs without the first-named applicant’s knowledge. She submits that on or around March 2015, the first-named applicant discovered a large amount of drugs in the shop during a routine check of the shop.
The representative submits the first-named applicant immediately left Lahore for Sialkot in order to disconnect himself from [Mr A] and avoid persecution. She submits [Mr A], being a childhood friend of the first-named applicant, knows of the whereabouts of most of the applicants’ extended family and friends.
The representative submits that after six months, the first-named applicant returned to Lahore in September 2015. She submits that on 6 September 2015, [Mr A] contacted the first-named applicant through his relative and revealed that he was working for the Pakistani Taliban under the umbrella of the [business]. She submits the police then raided the shop, took the drugs and arrested [Mr A] after a First Information Report was registered [in] March 2015. She submits [Mr A] was subsequently released with the assistance of the Pakistani Taliban.
The representative submits [Mr A] tried to lure the first-named applicant into joining the drug trafficking activities by asserting that it is a highly lucrative business involving the transport, storage and distribution of drugs on behalf of the Pakistani Taliban, and that the police were involved. She submits that when the first-named applicant refused [Mr A]’s offer, [Mr A] made death threats and threatened to accuse him of blasphemy.
The representative submits that the first-named applicant went into hiding at an “undisclosed location” where he decided to report his discussions with [Mr A] to the “high ups” of the Pakistani government and law enforcement agencies.
The representative submits that on or around April 2016, [Mr A] contacted the applicant again and made another attempt to recruit the first-named applicant, which was refused. She submits [Mr A] made further death threats against the first-named applicant on 21 April 2016 and that on the same day, he was arrested by the police on the instructions of [Mr A] and taken to a “private torture cell”, where he was physically and mentally tortured for about three months. She submits [Mr A], the police and the Pakistani Taliban had planned to arrest the first-named applicant on the basis of a pre-registered First Information Report filed [in] March 2015 if he refused to join the drug trafficking business. She submits the applicant was never produced before any court of law or given an opportunity to prove his innocence. She submits that the first-named applicant was severely injured upon his release, including lacerations and trauma, and his relatives admitted him into a hospital.
The representative submits that from August 2016, the first-named applicant went into hiding; sought help from a Pastor, the Minister for Human Rights and lawyers; filed a First Information Report through his lawyer against [Mr A]; and decided to leave Pakistan permanently for Australia, where his daughter resides as an Australian citizen.
The representative submits that after the applicants arrived in Australia [in] February 2017, [Mr A] and the Pakistani Taliban filed a First Information Report against the first-named applicant [in] March 2017 for blasphemy after being unable to locate him post-release from detention. She submits the mere allegation of blasphemy is enough to be sentenced to death in Pakistan. She further submits the blasphemy case remains active, as the first-named applicant has not been cleared of the allegations and he will be arrested on this basis if he returns to Pakistan. She further submits [Mr A] and the Pakistani Taliban will target him if he returns to Pakistan.
The representative submits the first-named applicant has been diagnosed with [Medical condition 1], dementia, traumatic depression and other medical conditions in Australia, while the second-named applicant suffers from traumatic depression and chronic diabetes. She submits the applicants cannot return to Pakistan due to their medical conditions.
Evidence:
The Tribunal has before it a range of material, including, relevantly:
(a)the applicant’s protection visa application forms dated 17 March 2017;
(b)the applicant’s identity documents, being copies of their passports, birth certificates and untranslated identity documents submitted to the Department;
(c)the protection visa decision record dated 3 August 2018 (delegate’s decision), a copy of which was provided by the applicants to the Tribunal;
(d)the application for review form dated 13 August 2018;
(e)all documents submitted to the Department and contained in Department file [number] in support of the applicant’s protection visa application, including:
·statements from the first-named applicant dated 17 March 2017;
·first Information Report made by [Mr A] at the [Town 1] police station in Lahore, Pakistan [in] March 2017;
·bank account statement of the applicants for the period from 25 February 2017 to 5 May 2017;
·statement of [Mr B], Legal Consultant dated 5 May 2017;
·support letters from family members, friends and community associates;
·website extract showing legislators from non-Muslim seats dated 25 August 2017;
·document entitled ‘Non-Muslim Seats’; and
·various news articles.
(f)all documents submitted to the Tribunal in support of the applicants’ application for review, including:
·the applicants’ representative’s pre-hearing written submissions dated 25 October 2021 and eight attachments, including:
osigned partnership deed between the first-named applicant and [Mr A] dated 9 December 1996;
ofirst Information Report made by Sub Inspector [Mr C] at the police station in [Neighbourhood 1], Lahore, Pakistan [in] March 2015;
omedical records of both applicants from Pakistan and Australia;
osupport letter from [Mr D], Pastor and Spiritual Healer dated 21 September 2021;
oaffidavit of [Mr E], the first-named applicant’s cousin, sworn on 22 October 2021;
ostatement of [Official F] dated 14 October 2021;
ostatement of [Mr G], the applicants’ advocate in Pakistan dated 20 October 2021, as well as a letter outlining the offences in First Information Reports against the first-named applicant and the punishment in Pakistan for the relevant offences dated 20 October 2021, including extracts of relevant Pakistani legislation and copies of his Pakistani legal qualifications;
oapplication for Taking Legal Action Against Accused, [Mr A] made by the first-named applicant to the SHO Police Station in [Neighbourhood 1], Lahore, Pakistan (undated);
ofirst Information Report made by [Mr A] against the first-named applicant for blasphemy at the police station in [Town 1], Lahore, Pakistan [in] March 2017; and,
ochronology of events prepared by the applicants’ representative.
·the first-named applicant’s previous medical records;
·statement of [Mr B], Legal Consultant dated 5 May 2017;
·bank account statement of the applicants for the period from 25 February 2017 to 5 May 2017;
·website extract showing legislators from non-Muslim seats dated 25 August 2017;
·support letter from [Ms H], the first-named applicant’s niece dated 28 April 2021;
·support letter from [Mr I], the first-named applicant’s brother dated 28 April 2021;
·undated statement of [Mr J], Advocate; and
·statutory declaration of [Mr K], the first-named applicant’s nephew, sworn in September 2021.
(g)country information from the applicants’ submissions and other sources, discussed further below, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) latest country information report on Pakistan, published on 20 February 2019 (latest DFAT report on Pakistan).
Country of reference / receiving country:
The applicants claim to be Pakistani nationals. Based on evidence provided to the Department by the applicants, and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that Pakistan is their country of nationality and also their receiving country for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) and s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicants do not have a right to enter and reside in any other country, therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicants are not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations under s.36(3) of the Act.
Hearing:
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 1 November 2021, 4 November 2021 and 11 November 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The first two hearings were conducted in-person and the third and last hearing was conducted by telephone with the consent of the parties. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu (Pakistan) and English languages. The applicants were accompanied by their representative. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Mr E], the first-named applicant’s cousin and [Official F]. [Mr G], the applicants’ advocate in Pakistan was on the witness list but was unavailable at the time of making contact with him.
After dispensing with the hearing preliminaries, including an exhaustive description of the requirements necessary to be made out for the grant of a Protection visa, the Tribunal discussed with the applicants that to be granted a protection visa they must either be recognised as refugees or be persons entitled to Complementary Protection.

The Tribunal explained that under Australian law, to be a refugee they must have a well- founded fear of persecution in Pakistan. This means the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is a real chance that they will face serious harm if they returned to Pakistan. The harm must be directed at them for one of the following Convention reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
With regard to Complementary Protection, there must be substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Pakistan.
The Tribunal discussed their claims as summarised in the applicants’ protection visa application, written claims, the delegate’s decision and the submissions of them and their representative. They confirmed that their claims as so summarised were not in dispute. The Tribunal asked the applicants whether those claims were accurate and complete. The applicants stated they were and that they did not need to change them.
The Tribunal discussed generally with the applicant and his wife their background in order to better understand their presence in Australia and their situation in Pakistan.
The Tribunal noted that the applicants were Christians. It noted that their Christianity was noted on their passports. The applicant confirmed that he and his family were active Christians in Pakistan and he actively supported community services that his church provided.
The Tribunal noted the applicant’s considerable health issues, including [Medical condition 1] and dementia and an assortment of other medical conditions. The applicant confirmed that he was ill and also stated that his wife suffered from diabetes. She was also being treated for depression. The Tribunal noted medical reports provided by the Representative attesting to the current medical condition of each of the applicants.
The Tribunal asked the applicant where they were presently living. He confirmed that they were living in a government supported rental house at [location].
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the findings of the Delegate.
The Tribunal noted that the Delegate considered the applicant’s claims not to be credible. The Tribunal explained that the Delegate determined that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence before him which supported the applicant’s claims. Specifically, the Delegate found that there was no credible evidence that the applicant’s Muslim business partner was a drug runner for the Taliban, that the applicant had been kidnapped and tortured by the Police and the Delegate had significant concerns that the applicant had delayed departing Pakistan for a considerable period following the grant of his Tourist Visa enabling him to travel to Australia. The Delegate was also concerned that the applicant had provided false and misleading information in relation to his reason for travelling to Australia at the time of applying for his visitor visa. All of those matters called into question the credibility of the applicant.
In response, the Representative referenced the documents that she had submitted attached to her submission and suggested that the Tribunal would be persuaded by the weight of evidence and witness evidence in support of the applicant’s claims.
The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial number of documents submitted by the Representative to the Tribunal prior to the hearing and the witness list.
Assessment of claims and evidence, and findings:
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70).
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, they should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):
The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
The Tribunal has considered carefully all of the applicants’ claims, individually and cumulatively, and makes the findings set out herein.
The Tribunal is mindful of the Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility (July 2015) issued by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which note:
In relation to protection visa matters, if the tribunal is not able to make a confident finding that an applicant’s account is not credible, it must make its assessment on the basis that it is possible, although not certain, that the applicant’s account of past events is true.[1]
[1] Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility (July 2015) Available at es-on-Assessment-of-Credibility.pdf
However, this should not lead to “an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by” the applicant.[2]
[2] Harjit Singh Randhawa v. The Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, No. NG994 of 1993, Australia: Federal Court, 11 August 1994.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant arrived in Australia [in] February 2017. Like the Delegate, the Tribunal also noted that the applicant was granted a Tourist Visa on 16 January 2017 and queried the applicant as to the reason for the delay, noting generally that the applicant claimed to fear for his life in Pakistan. The Tribunal explained that it might construe such a delay as the applicant’s claims lacking genuineness given he claimed to fear for his life.
The applicant explained that towards the end of their time in Pakistan, neither he nor his wife were leaving their house. He was relying totally upon his cousin, [Mr E], to make all of the arrangements for them to travel to Australia. He stated that they needed to be careful as they wanted direct flights and it took time to schedule those flights. He also explained that he was staying in his brother-in-law’s house which was about 70 kilometres from the airport. He explained that church members escorted he and his wife to the airport.
The Tribunal was impressed by the amount of detail the applicant was able to give it in relation to his departure from Pakistan. The applicant was able to recollect virtually every step of his journey from the home in which he was staying to Australia.
The Tribunal noted from the applicant’s claims that he was released from detention [in] July 2016, which was some six months before he departed Pakistan. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a detailed narrative as to how he was released from detention, including that his business partner, [Mr A], collected him from detention, put him in a car blindfolded and drove around for six to seven hours to disguise where he had been kept. They ended up in Lahore. They went to a pharmacy and then he was dropped at his own home. He discovered that the house was locked and his wife was not at home. The applicant said he walked to a bus stop and caught a rickshaw to his cousin’s house and found his wife and family there. The applicant said he stayed at his cousin’s house for six or seven days, during which he went to a Doctor for assistance for the various bruises and cuts that he had sustained whilst in detention. He was treated accordingly. He stated that after a week or so, they returned to his wife’s family’s house.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he was released from detention. Again, the applicant provided a very detailed recollection of his time in detention, including being hit by sticks, being spat upon and generally abused. He stated that every three days or so, [Mr A] and the officers would request him to join their drug trafficking business. Each time he refused and was again beaten. Ultimately, however, the applicant agreed to join the business and was duly released, however, not before being made to sign papers. However, he did not know what the papers contained.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was threatened whilst in detention. The applicant confirmed that he was often threatened with death or threatened that he would be accused of blasphemy which would lead to his death.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to go back to the beginning and to explain to it how he came to be in detention and to have been tortured.
The applicant explained that he was in a business partnership with [Mr A]. The applicant stated that the business, which dealt in [specified] goods, commenced in December of 1996.
The Tribunal noted a signed and what appeared to be registered Partnership Agreement between the applicant and [Mr A] evidencing that business was owned 50/50 between them. The applicant stated that [Mr A] had been a childhood friend and remained a friend whilst they successfully traded for many, many years.
The applicant went on to explain that in March of 2015, the applicant uncovered some unusual boxes. They did not have familiar markings. The applicant stated that he began to shake when he saw them because he thought they were weapons. He said he asked [Mr A] about the boxes and [Mr A] told him not to touch them for if he did, he and his family would be killed. The applicant stated that he was so shocked he couldn’t think.
The applicant stated that [in] March 2015, his shop was raided by the police and [Mr A] was taken into custody. He was not at the shop at the time, having not returned to the shop since his discovery of the boxes. It transpired that the boxes contained heroin and an FIR was registered against the business and a copy of the FIR was presented to the Tribunal.
The FIR, made out by the patrolling police, described a raid on the shop upon the receipt of a report from an informer. It appeared that [Mr A] attempted to run away but was caught by the police.
The applicant stated that he could not believe that [Mr A] was involved.
The applicant stated that on 6 September 2015 [Mr A] rang him and advised him that he was involved with the Taliban and the police in the trafficking of heroin and asked the applicant to join them.
The applicant stated that he told [Mr A] categorically that he did not want any involvement in the drug business or with his partners. At that time, [Mr A] told the applicant about the FIR which had been registered [in] March 2015 against the business partnership which in fact named both [Mr A] and the applicant. He again demanded the applicant to join the illicit business and threatened the applicant that if he doesn’t, he will accuse him of blasphemy. The applicant stated that he told [Mr A] that he would think about it.
The applicant went on to explain that he did not return to the business, as he wanted time to consider his options. He went to see spiritual helpers and leaders for advice. The Tribunal noted the statement provided by one such spiritual leader who outlined the source of the trauma the applicant was suffering.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to when he had last visited the business. He replied that he had not been to the business premises since March 2015 when he discovered the boxes and learned of [Mr A]’s arrest. He said that [Mr A] continued to run the business without him.
The Tribunal inquired as to how the applicant managed to survive given that he was no longer involved with the business and appeared to be hiding from [Mr A]. The applicant replied that he had three rental properties and the rent he received supported him and the family.
The applicant stated that [Mr A] rang him again on 21 April 2016 and again asked the applicant to re-join the business. The applicant stated that he told [Mr A] that he would not be involved.
It was that afternoon that he was taken by the police into detention.
The applicant restated all of the violence meted out on him and the threats made. The police and [Mr A] were involved in the threats. [Mr A] was present at the place at which he was detained. He restated that he was kept in captivity until late July 2016. He spent several minutes detailing what happened to him and even longer detailing the circumstances of his release, the promises that he made and his exhaustion at the time. Again, he referenced papers he was required to sign, but couldn’t say what they were. He couldn’t speculate as to what they were.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it had a number of significant concerns in relation to the applicant’s evidence and claims.
The first concern related to the paucity of evidence provided to the Delegate, when the Tribunal noted that much of the evidence provided to it prior to the hearing appeared to have existed prior to the interview with the Delegate. In particular, the FIR that had been registered [in] March 2015 did not appear on the Department file.
The applicant explained that he had given all of the documentation that had been provided to the Tribunal to his Representative at the time but that the Representative omitted to provide some of the documents to the Delegate even after the Delegate had invited the applicant and his Representative to make further submissions after the interview.
At this moment, the Representative intervened and confirmed to the Tribunal that the applicant had all of the information when she took over the matter. She identified the previous Representative by name and noted that he had been deregistered as a Migration Agent. The Tribunal noted that it was familiar with the deregistration of that particular Migration Agent.
The Representative went on to state that when she took on the case, she had set about herself verifying the authenticity of the documents that she had been given. She stated that she retained a lawyer in Pakistan to present the FIR to the police station from which it was issued and to confirm that it was in fact so registered.
The Tribunal noted a letter from that attorney, together with the attorney’s identity documents and evidence of his admission to practice, together with a detailed letter stating that he had viewed a copy of the original FIR at the police station from which it was registered.
The Tribunal expressed a second concern that it had. It noted that the applicant and his wife had departed Pakistan using valid passports. But it noted that there was the outstanding FIR which noted the applicant as having been accused of drug trafficking/drug possession.
The Representative stated that the applicant had not been arrested, that only [Mr A] had been arrested and that despite the strict security at the international airport, only outstanding arrest warrants would trigger the interest of the officials. She also went on to state that station house FIRs are not connected to the national database and therefore no red flags would have been activated as the applicant attempted to depart Pakistan.
The Tribunal then queried the applicant as to why only [Mr A] was arrested given that the business and the names of the two owners were clearly recorded on the registered FIR. The applicant explained that he was not present at the shop at the time of the raid, but that [Mr A] was present and attempted to escape. As he was not present, he could not be charged with possession.
The Tribunal took evidence from the applicant’s cousin, [Mr E].
The Tribunal asked the witness how it was that he was aware of the threats that had been made to the applicant.
The witness replied that he was in Pakistan. He explained that he and [the applicant] were very close, in fact confidantes of each other. He recalled that in March 2015, the applicant had called him about what he had found in his warehouse, being strange boxes.
He went on to state that his house was reasonably close to the applicant’s warehouse. He said that word got to him quickly that the police had gone to the warehouse and taken away [Mr A] and some boxes. He said that this was “hot news” in the community and that when he learned of it, he rang the second-named applicant and told them to stay at home. He stated that he told them not to go back to the warehouse.
The Tribunal asked the witness whether he had had any direct contact with [Mr A]. He replied that he had not since his arrest. He knew that [Mr A] was a close friend of the applicants.
The witness stated that he and the applicant spoke almost daily, and that the applicant would report to him all of the events that were happening as they unfolded. He was aware that the applicant had been kidnapped and held in detention but at the time they did not know where he was. He said it was a terrifying time for the family and for him not knowing where the applicant was or whether he was alive. The witness stated that the family were staying at his house during the applicant’s absence. It was his house to which the applicant appeared after having been released from detention.
The witness stated that he had taken the applicant to the hospital to be treated for his injuries. He confirmed that the applicant was in very poor shape when he arrived at his house and that he was very concerned for the applicant’s health.
The witness also confirmed that he arranged for the applicant, second-named applicant, and family to move from his house to his own brother-in-law’s house. He said that the applicant and second-named applicant and family remained at his brother-in-law’s house until they departed for Australia. He confirmed that he made all of the arrangements for their departure.
The Tribunal asked the witness why it was unsafe for the applicant to return to Pakistan. The witness stated that in Pakistan there is persecution against religious minorities. He said that the police “shake” the houses of Christians. He said that it is not uncommon for allegations and charges of blasphemy to be made against Christians or against enemies.
The witness stated that he was familiar with the FIR that had been taken out against the applicant [in] March 2017 by [Mr A] which stated that on 26 March 2017 the applicant had delivered offensive words against Islam. The Tribunal noted that this FIR was somewhat problematic as the allegation cited a gathering that took place on 26 March 2017 in Pakistan whilst the applicant was in fact in Australia. The witness stated that he was not surprised by that as it was likely that [Mr A] was not aware that the applicant had departed Pakistan. He said that [Mr A] had not seen the applicant for many months.

The Tribunal considered the statement of the Representative’s Pakistani advocate. The advocate had obtained and produced to the Representative copies of the FIR and also copies of property transactions which attested to the applicant’s claim that [Mr A] had transferred his three properties into [Mr A]’s name and that the bank accounts of the applicant were empty. The Tribunal noted the purported Register of Title of the land to which the applicant claimed ownership. The Tribunal noted they were now in the name of [Mr A].
The statement of the advocate also claimed to have lodged proceedings against [Mr A] in relation to the unauthorised transfer of properties. He claimed that the action was taken against [Mr A] and the police officers whom he claimed were in connivance with [Mr A]. He stated that the claim was not registered and went on to explain that he was not surprised by that as he, being a Muslim, was familiar with the practice of claims of Christians not being recorded by the police.
The Tribunal noted that several attempts were made to contact the advocate during the course of the hearing, given that he had been offered as a witness, but that the phone was not answered.
The Tribunal took evidence from a witness, [Official F], who was a Member of the Senate of Pakistan.
The Tribunal thanked the Senator for being available to provide evidence. The witness advised that he was a Representative of the Upper House of the Parliament of Pakistan.

100. In response to being asked about his involvement with the applicant, he advised that the applicant and the second-named applicant had been to see him in his office and advised him that they were in trouble. He stated that the applicant had discussed their issues with him.
101. The witness provided a restatement of the various issues and the Tribunal noted that they aligned with the applicant’s claims and identified by name the applicant’s business partner.
102. The witness stated that all he could do in the matter was refer the matter to a higher authority. He stated that he referred the applicant’s matter to a police officer and to the Interior Minister. He said that the Interior Minister was on the other side of politics to him.
103. The witness advised the Tribunal of the difficulties of making complaints to the police, particularly when the police themselves are involved, as they were in this case, with [Mr A]. He said it is quite often the case that the police themselves become involved in the scams.
104. The witness also stated that he advised the applicant that it would be better for them to move from their house.
105. The Tribunal asked the witness why it was unsafe for the applicant to return to Pakistan. The witness stated that it is not good for them in Pakistan. Asked to explain what he meant by that, the witness said that in the applicant’s circumstances, being a Christian, it is not safe for him to return. He went on to state that there is no police protection given to Christians. He also went on to state that it is common for Christian minorities to move from city to city if they have problems, but that their problems invariably follow them.
106. The Tribunal asked the Representative whether there was any particular evidence that she wanted the Tribunal to extract from the witness. She asked the Tribunal to ask the witness about the applicant’s capacity to leave Pakistan given that there was an FIR registered against his name. The witness readily responded, stating that FIRs from local police stations would not go on an exit control list. They are not in the national database. He said that in any event, all that a person would be required to do is mention that they are connected to a famous person, and doors usually open. The witness added that the applicant would have no place to go in Pakistan.
107. The Representative added that the applicant now has no possessions or money in Pakistan and that a threat to his life has been made by [Mr A], who has embezzled all of their possessions and property. It would be in [Mr A]’s interests that the applicants do not return and that the applicants would be harmed if they did return.
108. The Tribunal considered all of the Country Information it had in relation to the various issues raised by the applicants in their claims.
Christians
109. The Tribunal has considered country information it had obtained from the latest DFAT report on Pakistan concerning Christians relevant to the applicant’s claims:
3.136 The 2017 national census recorded that 1.6 per cent of the population, an estimated 3.3 million people, identify as Christians. Christian groups in Pakistan have told DFAT this number is inaccurate, and the community is larger. Most Christians live in Punjab, with sizeable populations in Sindh, Islamabad, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Most Christians are descendants of low-caste Hindus who converted during the British era. While a small number of Christians are relatively prosperous, Christians are the most economically vulnerable group in Pakistan and face significant social prejudice and class discrimination.
3.137 In 2018, Christian support group, Open Doors, ranked Pakistan fifth (out of fifty) most difficult country to be a Christian on its World Watch List. Many Pakistanis refer to Christians as ‘bhangi’ meaning dirty or sweepers. In 2018, politician Arif Abbasi reportedly referred to Christians as ‘churna’ in a National Assembly debate (meaning low-caste, but also with connotations of cleaning/sanitation work). Some advertisements for low-status work ask for Christian applicants only. Many Christians are bonded labourers with little education and thus limited access to legal remedies. Christians are also disproportionately represented in blasphemy cases (see Blasphemy).
3.138 Pakistan law does not restrict Christians from practising their religion, although some face difficulties in establishing new places of worship. Sharia law protects Christians as ‘people of the Book’, but these protections are rarely observed in practice...
3.143 DFAT assesses that Christians face a low level of official discrimination and a moderate level of societal discrimination. DFAT further assesses that Christians face a moderate risk of societal violence and sectarian violence. DFAT assesses implementation of laws against blasphemy, and the potential for communal violence following an accusation of blasphemy disproportionately affect religious minorities, including Christians, in Pakistan.

Blasphemy allegations
110. The Tribunal has considered country information it had obtained from the latest DFAT report on Pakistan concerning blasphemy allegations relevant to the applicant’s claims:
3.81 Blasphemy and other offences relating to religion are criminalised in Pakistan under Articles 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). Article 295C outlaws the use of ‘derogatory remarks’ against the Holy Prophet. Punishment for blasphemy is death. Under Article 295B, ‘defiling’ a copy of the Quran is punishable by life imprisonment, and under Article 298A, defiling ‘the sacred name of any wife, or members of the family, of the Holy Prophet, or any of the righteous Caliphs’ carries a maximum punishment of three years in prison, which may also be accompanied by a fine… Article 295A prohibits insulting any religion, not just Islam, and carries a sentence of up to ten years’ imprisonment, which may also be accompanied by a fine.
3.82 In 2017, the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) reported an increase in blasphemy-related violence, use of religious rhetoric, incitement of hatred, and discrimination against minority groups. The HRCP noted the government failed to repeal discriminatory laws. Local and international observers report increasing misuse of blasphemy laws, and a widening of actions considered chargeable blasphemy offences.
3.83 Although under the law, courts cannot impose a death sentence based on a police First Information Report (FIR, an initial written record of a complaint or reported crime), this occurs and judges often accept reports of blasphemy at face value...
3.84 Individuals have used blasphemy laws to settle personal or property disputes. Following an accusation, police automatically detain the alleged blasphemer—usually in solitary confinement—ostensibly for their own safety…
3.88 While blasphemy laws apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims, it is not culturally acceptable for religious minorities to make accusations of blasphemy in Pakistan.
3.89 While the majority of cases are brought by Muslims against Muslims, DFAT assesses implementation of laws against blasphemy, and the potential for communal violence following an accusation of blasphemy, disproportionately affect religious minorities in Pakistan.

111. The Tribunal also considered country information it had obtained from external sources.
112. Christians have been vulnerable to communal violence arising from accusations of blasphemy.[3] Most Christians accused of blasphemy are from poor backgrounds and unable to defend themselves.180 There is a growing trend of Christians leaving Pakistan,[4] or giving their children Muslim names to avoid adverse attention.[5]
[3] ‘USCIRF 2020 Annual Report', US Commission on International Religious Freedom, 28 April 2020, p.32.
[4] 'Country Policy and Information Note - Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts', UK Home Office, February 2021, p.53.
[5] 'Living in fear', News International, 24 November 2018; 'Pakistan: Christians give their children Islamic names to avoid abuse in school', Independent Catholic News, 4 October 2019.
113. Blasphemy laws are ambiguous, making people vulnerable to false allegations.[6] Blasphemy accusations have been used to attack people or escalate personal or property disputes.[7] The majority of blasphemy cases arise in Punjab province.[8] A marked increase in cases has occurred since July 2020 when the Punjab provincial assembly passed a bill that imposed punishments for vilifying holy Sunni figures, a law criticised for being open to misuse.[9]
[6] ‘Freedom of Faith in Pakistan: Contextualizing Programmatic and Policy Orientation’, Pak Institute for Peace Studies, p.24, 2 August 2018; 'Explained: Pakistan’s emotive blasphemy laws', Asad Hashim, Al Jazeera, 21 September 2020.
[7] 'Explained: Pakistan’s emotive blasphemy laws', Asad Hashim, Al Jazeera, 21 September 2020.
[8] ‘Freedom of Faith in Pakistan: Contextualizing Programmatic and Policy Orientation’, Pak Institute for Peace Studies, p.25, 2 August 2018; 'Country Policy and Information Note - Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts', UK Home Office, February 2021, p.53.
[9] 'Pakistan: Hardline Sunni groups on collision course with Shiites', S. Khan, Deutsche Welle, 14 September 2020; see also ‘The Changing Landscape of Anti-Shia Politics in Pakistan', Jaffer A. Mirza, The Diplomat, 28 September 2020.
114. Christians, Ahmadis, Hindus, and Muslims have been charged with blasphemy, with individuals reportedly using the threat of blasphemy laws to intimidate vulnerable people in personal disputes, to appropriate property and to attack particular sects.[10]
[10] ‘State of Human Rights in 2017’, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 16 April 2018, p.32; ‘United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2019’, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, 29 April 2019, p.74.
115. Pakistanis accused of blasphemy face mob lynching or vigilante violence. An accusation that someone has blasphemed is capable of inciting violent mobs, and accused persons are often killed extrajudicially.[11]
Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) – Muslim extremists
[11] 'The troubled history of Pakistan’s blasphemy law', Alia Shoaib, The Independent, 11 March 2020.
116. The Tribunal has considered country information it had obtained from the latest DFAT report on Pakistan concerning the TTP relevant to the applicant’s claims:
2.84 Despite official disruption efforts, the TTP and its affiliated networks remained the greatest security threat to Pakistan, with the highest overall number of attacks in 2018. TTP is the largest banned group in Pakistan and was responsible for 79 terrorist attacks across the country, resulting in 185 fatalities and 3336 injuries in 2018 (compared to 70, causing 360 fatalities and 360 injuries in 2017). The TTP—effectively an umbrella organisation for predominantly Pashtun Sunni militant groups—splintered into several separate groups reflecting Operation Zarb-e-Azb, leadership tensions and the rise of ISIL. Nevertheless, in early 2017, a number of these splinter groups re-joined the TTP or pledged support for its leader. The TTP and its splinter groups maintain a separate identity from the Afghan Taliban, although they remain ideologically aligned. TTP's level of cohesion waxes and wanes depending on the leadership. Even when TTP undergoes cyclical splintering, the disparate networks remain dangerous and willing to break any short-term agreements they may reach with the Pakistani state.

117. The Tribunal also considered country information it had obtained from external sources.
118. The TTP appears to be reconsolidating. In the latter half of 2020, the TTP leadership announced that it had been working to consolidate the campaign against what it condemned as an ‘un-Islamic system’ in Pakistan.[12] Reportedly, the TTP ‘struck an alliance in July with half a dozen small militant factions’.[13] In February 2021, the United Nations Security Council reported that five entities had pledged alliance to the TTP in July-August 2020, including Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Hizb-ul-Ahrar, the Shehryar Mehsud group, the Amjad Farooqi group and ‘the Usman Saifullah group (formerly known as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi)’, resulting in the increased strength of the TTP and ‘a sharp increase in attacks in the region’.[14] Assessments of TTP fighting strength reportedly range between 2,500 and 6,000.[15]
Police corruption and state protection
[12] 'Militant Pakistan Taliban Brings Splinters Back Into Its Fold', Ayaz Gul, Voice of America, 18 August 2020.
[13] 'Attacks surge in northwest Pakistan as Afghan peace effort brings shifting sands', Reuters, 18 September 2020.
[14] ‘Twenty-seventh report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team submitted pursuant to resolution 2368 (2017) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities', Security Council Report, 2 February 2021, p.16.
[15] ‘Twenty-seventh report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team submitted pursuant to resolution 2368 (2017) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities', Security Council Report, 2 February 2021, p.16.
119. The Tribunal has considered country information it had obtained from the latest DFAT report on Pakistan concerning police corruption and state protection relevant to the applicant’s claims:
Corruption
2.18 Corruption is widespread and systemic. The private sector GAN Business Anti-Corruption portal claims the Pakistan government is unable to guarantee integrity in state bodies and prevent corruption, despite an adequate legal framework. Transparency International’s 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked Pakistan 117th out of 180 countries, equal with Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon and Togo. Pakistan’s estimated 12.8 per cent tax to GDP ratio is low by international standards, with the Pakistan economy ranking 172nd out of 190 countries for paying taxes.
2.19 Bribery, is prevalent in law enforcement, procurement and provision of public services. The judiciary is not seen as reliably independent and has been accused of shielding corrupt political practices from prosecution.
Police, Frontier Corps and Rangers
5.11 The effectiveness of provincial police forces in Pakistan and the challenges faced by these forces vary. However, overall, police capacity in Pakistan is limited, due to lack of resources, poor training, insufficient and outmoded equipment, and competing pressures from superiors, political actors, security forces and the judiciary. Sectarian violence and domestic terrorism diverts resources from community 'policing' to a more incident response and security/guarding role. Popular perception of high levels of police corruption is widespread. Overall, public perception of police is low.
5.12 Police are poorly paid and face poor working conditions, high personal security risks, and decreasing resources. Individual police officers often augment their salaries with bribes… Police and government officers are often targeted for attack and militant groups often explicitly target police. This has a significant disruptive impact physically, mentally, and on resources and agency focus.
5.14 In addition to the province-based police forces, several paramilitary forces operate in Pakistan. These groups include the Pakistan Rangers, which operate predominantly in Punjab and Sindh provinces. The Rangers are notionally under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, but are headed by an army general and are in practice under the control of the military. The Rangers undertake border security operations along the Indian border, as well as internal law and order operations. The Frontier Corps perform a similar role to the Rangers in western border regions, including Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the former FATA.
5.15 The UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported on widespread human rights violations, including torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, extra-judicial executions and enforced disappearances by the police, Rangers and Frontier Corps.

120. The Tribunal also considered country information it had obtained from external sources.
121. Reports indicate that police and Rangers are underfunded, poorly trained, susceptible to corruption, and may fail to take reports or register false reports.[16] Although arbitrary arrest and detention are prohibited by law, authorities do not always observe these prohibitions and operate in relative impunity.[17] Police and security forces have held prisoners incommunicado and refused to disclose their location.[18] Police have detained individuals arbitrarily to extort bribes for their release and detained the relatives of wanted individuals to compel suspects to surrender.[19] Security officials have been implicated in enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.[20]
Access to medical treatment
[16] ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Pakistan', US Department of State, 11 March 2020, p.24; '"This Crooked System": Police abuse and reform in Pakistan', Human Rights Watch, 25 September 2016.
[17] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Pakistan', US Department of State, 11 March 2020, p.8.
[18] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Pakistan', US Department of State, 11 March 2020, pp.3, 10 and 11.
[19] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Pakistan', US Department of State, 11 March 2020, p.10.
[20] ‘World Report 2021. Events of 2020', Human Rights Watch, 13 January 2021, p.522, 20210114072851; 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Pakistan', US Department of State, 11 March 2020, pp.18-19; and see, for example: 'Protesters seek judicial probe into student’s murder', Behram Baloch, Dawn, 23 August 2020; 'Family accuses police of ‘extra-judicial murder' in Karachi', Express Tribune, 13 September 2020; 'Killing of 22-year-old student by police sparks outrage in Pakistan', Shamil Shams, Deutsche Welle, 3 January 2021.
122. The Tribunal has considered country information it had obtained from the latest DFAT report on Pakistan concerning access to medical treatment relevant to the applicant’s claims:
2.22 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.
2.23 In 2010, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution devolved significant powers to the provinces, resulting in highly variable health service provision and budget allocation across the country. The World Bank notes health expenditure accounted for 2.69 per cent of Pakistan’s GDP in 2016, compared to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) south-east Asia regional average of 4.6 per cent (2015), the WHO’s global average of 6.3 per cent (2015), and the Australian government average of over 10 per cent (2015-16). In addition to budgetary and capacity deficits, the uncertain security environment and incidence of natural disasters have disrupted improvements to the health system.

2.27 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. Islamic religious practices, such as observation of the purdah, also restrict women’s activities outside the home and therefore create additional access barriers to health care for women and girls (see Women).
2.28 Many religious and secular charities provide emergency relief, education and health services, but generally focus their support on the specific needs of their community or sect.

123. The Tribunal also considered relevant country information from external sources.
124. Family support is critical during hospitalisation because care is very basic.[21]
[21] 'Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum Fact Finding Mission Report Pakistan', Government of Austria, September 2015, p.62.
125. The quality and coverage of mental health services in Pakistan is poor. Exact statistics on mental health are not available, but community surveys indicate that about 10 per cent of urban men and a quarter of urban women in Pakistan suffer from mental health issues. Pakistan spends an average of four per cent of GDP on health, and less than half a per cent on mental health care, with one psychiatrist for every 500,000 people.[22]
Internal relocation
[22] ‘Integration of Mental Health into Primary Healthcare: A challenge for primary care physicians’, Tayyaba Rehman, Tahira Amjad, Fareed Aslam Minhas, Javeria Kamran, Noor Shah, Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal, vol.69 (Supplement 2), 17 May 2019, pp.286-287.
126. The Tribunal has considered country information it had obtained from the latest DFAT report on Pakistan concerning internal relocation relevant to the applicant’s claims:
5.31 Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of movement in Pakistan. Internal migration is widespread and common.
5.32 Large 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 (see relevant sections). DFAT assesses that groups facing official discrimination (see relevant sections) will face discrimination in all parts of the country.

Treatment of returnees
127. The Tribunal has considered country information it had obtained from the latest DFAT report on Pakistan concerning treatment of returnees relevant to the applicant’s claims:
5.37 DFAT understands the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis is drafting a policy for lawful and illegitimate returnees. In practice, returnees tend to leave Pakistan on valid travel documents and therefore do not commit immigration offences under Pakistan law. Those who return voluntarily and with valid travel documentation are typically processed like any other citizen returning to Pakistan.
5.38 The government issues ‘genuine returnees’ with temporary documents when they arrive. A genuine returnee is defined as someone who exited Pakistan legally irrespective of how they entered destination countries. Those who are returned involuntarily or who travel on emergency travel documents are likely to attract attention from the authorities upon arrival. MOI will interview failed returnees and release them if their exit was deemed to be legal, but may detain those deemed to have departed illegally. People suspected of or charged with criminal offences in Pakistan are likely to face questioning on return, irrespective of whether they departed legally or not.
5.39 DFAT understands that people returned to Pakistan involuntarily are typically questioned upon arrival to ascertain whether they left the country illegally, are wanted for crimes in Pakistan, or have committed any offences while abroad. Those who left Pakistan on valid travel documentation and have not committed any other crimes are typically released within a couple of hours. Those found to have contravened Pakistani immigration laws are typically arrested and detained. These people are usually released within a few days, either after being bailed by their families or having paid a fine, although the law provides for prison sentences. Those wanted for a crime in Pakistan or who have committed a serious offence while abroad may be arrested and held on remand, or required to report regularly to police as a form of parole.
5.44 Returnees are typically able to reintegrate into Pakistani community without repercussions stemming from their migration attempt, although involuntary returnees who took on debt to fund their migration attempt tend to face a higher risk of financial hardship and familial shame. NGOs report that less than 0.5 per cent of returnees do not reintegrate and seek to go abroad again to seek asylum.
5.45 DFAT assesses that returnees to Pakistan do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination as a result of their attempt to migrate, or because of having lived in a western country. Nevertheless, DFAT notes societal or official discrimination or violence can still occur due to the reason they attempted to migrate.

128. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a citizen of Pakistan.
129. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and his wife are Christians, noting that the same is recorded on their passports.
130. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was in a business partnership with [Mr A].
131. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr A] was a Muslim and a long-time friend from when they were both young.
132. The Tribunal accepts that on the evidence before it, which it cannot discount, that [Mr A] was arrested in relation to the possession of drugs in premises owned jointly by [Mr A] and the applicant. His immediate release was facilitated by the police.
133. The Tribunal accepts that it is plausible that [Mr A] threatened the applicant that he must allow the business to continue in order to facilitate the trafficking of drugs and [Mr A]’s association with his busines partners. Whether that was a threat to the applicant that he must remain in business with [Mr A], or a threat that he must not report or sabotage the business is a matter of interpretation, and the Tribunal acknowledges that whilst it sees a difference, it acknowledges that the applicant sees them as being one and the same thing.
134. The Tribunal accepts that based on medical reports provided and on the basis of witness statements and the direct evidence of witnesses, that the applicant had been detained by Pakistani police and threatened with harm.
135. The Tribunal accepts, on the strength of the evidence provided by the Representative’s advocate in Pakistan, that the applicant has been dispossessed of his three rental properties by [Mr A].
136. The Tribunal accepts, again on the strength of the statement by the Representative’s advocate in Pakistan, that an FIR has been registered against the applicant alleging conduct consistent with blasphemy. The Tribunal accepts as plausible that [Mr A] orchestrated such a charge on the basis that he could not account for the applicant’s whereabouts since his release from detention and the applicant’s non-engagement in the business.
137. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and his wife departed Pakistan because he feared harm from [Mr A] and the corrupt police with whom [Mr A] was associated given that he had disappeared after promising to continue in business with [Mr A].
138. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant genuinely fears being arrested on a charge of blasphemy. He fears that upon returning to Pakistan he will be arrested at the airport. Whilst the Tribunal notes that such an FIR, registered in a local station house, is unlikely to be recorded on the national database, the fact that the FIR was registered with the assistance of corruption and corrupt authorities, there is a plausible risk that such a charge may appear on the database against which the applicant will be checked upon his return.
139. The Tribunal respects the decision of the delegate but acknowledges that the Tribunal has been presented with additional evidence and has taken witness statements which apparently were not made available to the delegate and which have been submitted to the Tribunal to address the concerns specifically addressed by the delegate.
140. The Tribunal has given weight to the evidence of the two witnesses.
141. The evidence of the first witness, the applicant’s cousin, whilst possibly being discounted by virtue of their relationship, was taken from Pakistan, he had not had the benefit of being present for the hearing and the questions that were being asked and concerns raised, yet recounted events and circumstances that aligned with the claims of the applicant. His explanations for being familiar with the events as they impacted the applicant were plausible, as was his involvement in finding accommodation for the applicant and his family and making the arrangements for their ultimate departure.
142. The Tribunal gave weight to the evidence of the second witness, a senator, who was aware of the applicant’s complaints from an early involvement. He provided useful information as to how complaints are made, and the difficulties experienced by Christians in making complaints, especially where the authorities themselves are involved. He also spoke authoritatively about the plight of those accused of blasphemy and the practices at airports.
143. The Tribunal was troubled by the seeming unavailability of the local lawyer despite being on the witness list and who had provided various statements as to the apparent authenticity of the FIRs and applicant’s legal action against [Mr A], and who provided corroborating evidence of the past ownership of three parcels of land and the current ownership of them by [Mr A]. The Tribunal had little scope to reject the evidence, as identity documents of the lawyer were provided, together with copies of documents purporting to be his credentials.
144. The Tribunal was persuaded by the country information relating to blasphemy charges, with the Tribunal having sourced numerous examples of harm being inflicted upon those charged in circumstances where the allegation of blasphemy was weaponised.
145. The applicant’s evidence as to his involvement with [Mr A], his discovery of the boxes and drugs, the pressure put upon him by [Mr A], his detention and injuries, and the circumstances of the threats made to him have been consistent from the time of making his claims, through interviews and into this hearing.
146. The applicant claims that his major fear has been that of the blasphemy threat and charge – the fact of such a charge being made against him by [Mr A] and supported by the authorities with whom [Mr A] was in business. His representative has made submissions that his Christianity makes the charges and threats more likely as would his treatment were he returned to Pakistan in the light of the accusations and charges made against him.
147. Therefore, based on the applicant’s evidence, and the evidence of witnesses and the available country information, the Tribunal accepts that there is a real chance the applicant will be seriously harmed as a result of his having been in business with [Mr A], a Muslim and who has used their business in the illegal pursuit of drug possession and trafficking and which has escalated into the applicant being alleged to be a blasphemer by [Mr A] and his associates who are fearful of the exposure of their business by the applicant, in the event that he is returned to his home in Pakistan.
148. The Tribunal finds that if the applicant returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is a real chance (not being a remote or insubstantial one) that he would be physically injured or killed by [Mr A] or people associated with him, including people who may be police officers or religious extremists due to his being a person having been in business with [Mr A], a Muslim and who has used their business in the illegal pursuit of drug possession and trafficking and which has escalated into the applicant being alleged to be a blasphemer by [Mr A] and his associates who are fearful of the exposure of their business by the applicant.
149. The Tribunal has considered whether the real chance extends to all parts of Pakistan, or whether it might be possible for the applicant to relocate to an area or areas where there is safe human habitation and to which safe access is lawfully possible within Pakistan.
150. The Tribunal considered country information concerning relocation submitted to and available to it as follows:
Radicals invoke religious sentiments of ordinary followers and lead them to believe that killing those accused of blasphemy can earn them a ticket to heaven (jannat).
1.There have been numerous instances of this mentality at its brazen display. The bodyguard of then Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer murdered him for his stance against blasphemy law. The killer (Mumtaz Qadari) became instant hero in the country. The love for killer was so high that lawyers in the district court of Rawalpindi (the home town of applicant) threw petals on him when he was attending the court for murder trial.[23] One of the lawyers who offered free representation for Mumtaz Qadari, is Judge of the High Court of Islamabad now. Justice Shaukat Sadaqui has openly been supporter of Mumtaz Qadari.
[23] The Guardian, ‘Salmaan Taseer murder case harks back to 1929 killing of Hindu publisher’ (13 March 2015) < another incident, a young boy who was attending the sermon in a Mosque misheard the Mullah (preacher) saying, “who do not love the prophet? The boy raised his hand and when realised his mistake he went home and chop off his hand himself because he believed he has insulted the prophet Muhammad by raising hand that he does not love the prophet. He has become a sensation since this horrible incident as a true lover of prophet Muhammad.[24]
[24] Dawn, ‘Boy cuts off own hand after blasphemy mistake: Punjab police’ (15 January 2016) < another incident, a vigilante faithful Muhammad Saeed of Talagang in Chakwal District lodged First Information Report (FIR) on 9 June 2011 against a Christian man resident of Lahore who posted some comments on a TV Channel’s website. Chakwal is some 250-kilo meters away from Lahore near Rawalpindi. The accused was arrested after 3 and half year later. Now the fate of the Christian man who holds master’s degree in computer sciences, is unclear. He will rot in jail for years before he may get a chance of trial in the court.[25] Until now, he is still in jail without trial.
[25] Dawn, ‘Man held over blasphemy allegation’ (15 November 2014) < 5 September 2015, police arrested another Christian labourer in the district of Kasur under blasphemy law. The accused Pervaiz Masih was working on a construction site where he was accused to have passed derogatory remarks about prophet Muhammad in an argument with another Muslim labourer. Kasur is some 40-kilo meters west of Lahore.[26]
5.On 19 October 2015, police arrested Naveed John a Christian healer from Sargodha, a town some 175 kilometres southwest of Islamabad. Naveed was accused of using sword during his healing sessions that has inscription on it in Arabic. The residents complained that it hurt their religious feelings. He was arrested and facing up to 10 years in jail.[27]
6.A Muslim lecturer, poet and Full Bright Scholar, Junaid Hafeez of Bahu din Zakaria University in Multan was accused of posting derogatory remarks on a Facebook page by a student linked with Jamaat Islami There was no proof that Junaid did that. However, since 2013 Junaid Hafeez is in Jail in Sahiwal. The lawyer, Rashid Rehman a member of Pakistan Human Rights Commission, who was representing Junaid Hafeez was murdered in his chamber after receiving threats from opposing lawyers in front of a judge in an open court during trial that he will not be able to appear in the next hearing. Now Junaid Hafeez is without representation sitting in jail for crime he did not commit.[28]

There is no protection for the accused of blasphemy in Pakistan. Even Pakistani Government acknowledge the sensitivity and always sent the accused to Western countries. Some of the cities in Pakistan with bigger Christian concentration of populations are sometime considered to be able to provide safe abode for accused.
For instance, Gujranwala is situated about 50 kilometres on north of Lahore and almost 200 kilometres on east of Rawalpindi. Gujranwala has been regarded as the most extremist city of Pakistan. There have been numerous incidents of attacks on Christians since 1996 when Salamat Masih and his family were accused of blasphemy. The high court acquitted them from the charge, but they were attacked in the court and Rehmat Masih died on the spot.
In 2011, a father and son in Aziz Colony (an area with large concentration of Christian families) Gujranwala were accused of Blasphemy and when they were released from protective custody there were charged mob to attack the Theological Seminary, Church and Christian homes in Aziz Colony. The residents had to flee the area, and many have left permanently and sought asylum in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Thailand.[29]
[26] Dawn, ‘Police arrest Christian labourer for blasphemy in Kasur’ (5 September 2015) < Dawn, ‘Christian healer arrested for blasphemy in Lahore’ (19 October 2015) < Ali Sethi, ‘Pakistan’s Tyranny of Blasphemy’ (20 May 2014) The New York Times < Asad Kharal, ‘Release of alleged blasphemers sparks riots in Gujranwala’ (1 May 2011) The Express Tribune < Having carefully considered the evidence submitted by the Representative, and relevant country information, the Tribunal finds that the real chance of the applicant being persecuted for reasons of his religion, extends to the whole of Pakistan as required by s.5J(1)(c) of the Act.
152. The Tribunal has duly considered whether effective protection measures as defined in s.5LA of the Act are available to the applicants. Having regard to the DFAT country information and other country information referenced above, concerning the effectiveness of the Pakistani Police Force, and in particular the links between elements of it and [Mr A] and also Islamic fundamentalist groups, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants can access the protection of the Pakistani State, nor is there a reasonably effective police force to assist him, for the purposes of s.5LA(2)(a) and (c) of the Act, in respect of the persecution he faces on account of his religion from [Mr A], the authorities and Islamic fundamentalists. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that effective protection measures are not available to the applicant for the purposes of s.5J(2) of the Act.
153. Finally, as the persecution feared relates to his religion, there are no relevant behavioural modification steps for the purposes of s.5J(3) of the Act and the Tribunal finds accordingly.
Cumulative claims
154. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, as well as having considered the personal circumstances of the applicant, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a real chance in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicants would be persecuted for reason of their religion. Their fear of persecution is well-founded as required by s.5J of the Act and therefore they are refugees within the meaning of s.5H.

Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm?
155. As the Tribunal has determined that the applicant is a refugee in accordance with s.36(2)(a), it is not required to consider whether, on the evidence before it, that there would be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Pakistan.
Conclusion: Refugee Criterion
156. Considering all of the above circumstances, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is a real chance that in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant will be persecuted for reasons of his religion. His fear of persecution is well-founded as required by s.5J of the Act and therefore he is a refugee within the meaning of s.5H.
Conclusion: Complementary Protection
157. As the Tribunal has determined that the applicant is a refugee in accordance with s.36(2)(a), it is not required to consider whether, on the evidence before it, that there would be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Pakistan.
Overall Conclusion
158. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that the first named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
159. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the other applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) or (aa). However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the second-named applicant, and wife of the applicant is a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant for the purposes of s.36(2)(b)(i). As such, the fate of her application depends on the outcome of the first named applicant’s application. It follows that the other applicant will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s.36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.
DECISION
160. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i) that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)that the other applicant satisfies s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Michael Hawkins AM
Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2021] AATA 5158

29 November 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Standing