1828237 (Refugee)

The applicant, an alleged Hazara man and Shia Muslim from Afghanistan, sought a protection visa. The delegate refused to grant the visa, finding that the applicant had not substantiated his claims regarding his ethnicity, place of origin, or past persecution by the Taliban or Kuchis. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm due to his ethnicity or religion, nor that he had a profile that would make him a target as a returned asylum seeker from the West.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on his ethnicity, religion, or status as a returned asylum seeker, or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. A key issue was the applicant's ability to substantiate his identity and claims, given the delegate's concerns about the authenticity of provided identity documents and the applicant's perceived lack of cultural understanding.

The delegate's decision was based on country information suggesting that the Taliban do not have a policy of persecuting ethnic Hazaras for their Shia religion. While the delegate accepted the applicant was a Shia Muslim and would likely continue to attend religious events in Afghanistan, they were not satisfied he faced a real chance of serious harm in Kabul for this reason, nor in Mazar-e-Sharif, which was considered comparatively secure. The delegate also found that while the applicant might face discrimination, it would not amount to serious harm, and that he could take reasonable steps to mitigate any perceived risk from his time in Australia.

The delegate concluded that the applicant would not face a real chance of persecution in Afghanistan now or in the foreseeable future. Consequently, the delegate refused to grant the protection visa.