1825991 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Shia Muslim from Pakistan, sought a protection visa, claiming he faced death threats from sectarian terrorist groups, specifically Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. He asserted that these groups had strong networks throughout Pakistan, had personally attacked him twice, and that law enforcement agencies were unable to provide protection due to their own vulnerability to attacks. The applicant also argued that relocating to other parts of Pakistan would not be safe, as he would be easily identified by these groups due to his language difference and unfamiliarity with the region. The matter came before the Tribunal for review.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires the applicant to be a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution. This involved assessing whether the applicant's fear of persecution based on his religion and his role as a Noha reciter was well-founded, and whether effective protection was available to him in Pakistan. The Tribunal was also required to consider the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) if the refugee criterion was not met, assessing the real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and country information. The applicant detailed threats and attacks he had experienced, and the inability of the police to offer protection. He also explained that his family's lineage and his activities as a Noha reciter, which involved grooming young people and assisting with welfare needs, made him a target. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's fear of persecution was based on his religion and his membership in a particular social group, and that the state was unable to provide protection. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant satisfied the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. It was deemed unnecessary to consider the complementary protection criterion given this finding.