1905564 (Refugee) - [2024] AATA 1800

1905564 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1800 (19 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Isabel Owen
CASE NUMBER: 1905564

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Pakistan
MEMBER:Justin Meyer
DATE:19 March 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 19 March 2024 at 3:58pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – political opinion – Awami National Party member – Village Defence Committee member – opposition to the Taliban – race – Pashtun – kidnapping – fear of killing – physical assault – returnee from a Western country – mental health issues – effective protection – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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 dependants.
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 1 March 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa on 6 October 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee as defined by s5H(1) of the Act and thus not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s36(2)(a) of the Act. He was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Pakistan, there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm as outlined in s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 March 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Pashto and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
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 (Cth) (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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 1905564 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 1905564 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1800
Case: [2024] AATA 1800
Decision Date: 19 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a Pakistani national, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution due to his membership in the Awami National Party (ANP) and a Village Defence Committee (VDC). He alleged that these affiliations, coupled with his Pashtun ethnicity, placed him at risk of serious harm or death from the Taliban. The matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, presided over by Member Justin Meyer.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, if he did not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Pakistan, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

Member Meyer found that the applicant's claims of being a member of the ANP and a VDC, and the associated threats and an attack he experienced, were supported by documentary evidence and his detailed account. The Tribunal also considered country information indicating a significant increase in terrorist attacks in Pakistan, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the limited capacity of Pakistani authorities to provide effective protection. Crucially, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's membership in a peace committee, combined with other factors, contributed to a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's ongoing mental health issues, which would make him more vulnerable and less able to relocate.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfied the criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958*, meaning Australia had protection obligations towards him because he was considered a refugee.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Having noted the applicant’s claims of mental trauma over years, The Tribunal utilised the Tribunal’s guidelines on vulnerable persons and created an open, reassuring and supportive environment in order to establish a relationship of confidence and trust between the member and the applicant and facilitated the full disclosure of sensitive and personal information.Claims and evidence In his application to the department, the applicant claimed as follows:·He was born in [Village 1], Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, Pakistan ·He is a Pashtun and a Sunni Muslim, married with [number] children ·His life was in danger due to his membership of the Awami National Party (ANP) and a Village Defence Committee (VDC) so he deserted his ship in [Town 1], Australia ·After Swat was freed form Taliban rule in 2009, “Peace Committees” or “Lashkar Aman” were formed in every village. These later became Village Defence Committees (VDC) ·The military demanded that at least one adult male from each household should join a VDC and the applicant joined in 2009 ·As a VDC member, he had to cooperate fully with the army personnel, including informing the military about Taliban locations ·The VDC were targeted by the Taliban and many were killed or seriously injured ·He was threatened for the first time in February 2013 ·A warning letter was thrown outside his home, telling him to cease work with the VDC and the ANP ·He was scared but because of the army presence and his work as a seaman he ignored the warning ·After returning from a shipping contract in February 2014, he and his family went to live with his relatives in [Town 2]. He began a new shipping contract in October 2014 and his family then returned to [Village 1] ·He was threatened again by the Taliban on the telephone but again ignored it ·In May 2018 the applicant was attacked by the Taliban while returning home from the local mosque after evening prayers. Unknown assailants fired shots at him and he fled form the scene ·A few days after the attack he travelled to Karachi and awaited a new shipping contract ·In June 2018 he set sail and after the ship arrived in [Town 1] he deserted the ship ·If he returns to Pakistan he’ll be seriously harmed or killed ·There is no state protection or place to relocate as the Taliban have networks everywhere ·With a family to support it is not practical or reasonable for him to relocate to major cities such as Lahore or Islamabad The applicant attended a departmental interview on 18 January 2019. He reiterated his claims and added the following further information: ·He has travelled to [specified countries] as a crew member ·He deserted his ship this time, despite visiting Australia previously, because he had the opportunity ·[Town 2] is about three kilometres away from [Village 1] ·His family are currently residing in [Village 1] and [Town 2] ·He has no relatives in Sindh or Punjab province ·He became a ship crew member in [specified year] ·As part of the VDC he participated in night watches and identified Taliban houses. He was not armed during this time. ·When he was shot at in May 2018 it was dark and he couldn’t see how many men there were. They fired three shots and he ran away. ·In 2018 he had spent 11 months in the village ([Village 1]). He stayed mostly at home. ·He joined the ANP in 2008. ·He attended ANP gatherings and meetings and put up banners for them. The last meeting he attended was in 2018. ·None of his family have been harmed by the Taliban. ·It is not safe to relocate – the Taliban have networks everywhere. ·There are language problems for Pashtuns if they relocate to Punjab province. Also he would need to find two sponsors to even rent a property. Those Pashtuns resident in Punjab province relocated in 2008-09, but now it’s very difficult to do so.·(VDC Vice president) [Leader A’s] brother was killed in Karachi. ·The wage dispute with [Employer 1] was a pretext to get off the ship – he faces danger in Pakistan. ·He has a limited education and would have no chance of finding employment should he relocate. ·His NIC identifies him as a Pashtun and Pashtuns are viewed as terrorists by Punjabis.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The South Asia Terrorism portal makes these observations:An October 12, 2022, report suggested that the TTP had re-emerged violently in the restive areas of Swat, as militants detained Police personnel and an Army officer after enforcement officials launched an operation to capture TTP militants. Earlier, an August 12, 2022, report noted that TTP militants had established a check-post at Balasoor Top, besides roaming about freely in other areas of the Matta tehsil of Swat. The areas included Bar Shor, Koz Shor, Namal, Gat Peuchar and among others. Significantly, the Geo News correspondent in Swat, Mehboob Ali, claimed that at least 200-250 TTP terrorists were present and operating in the area. … Meanwhile, a report presented to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif during the national security review meeting in December 2022, warned that, because of an acute shortage of staff and resources, the KP CTD would not be able to prevent or stop terrorist attacks in the province, and lacked the capacity to fight terrorism. … As ‘official’ talks between the TTP and the Government collapsed with the TTPs declaration of an end to the ceasefire on November 28, 2022, an escalation of violence within KP, and the possibilities of its fanning out into other areas of Pakistan, have increased dramatically. The risk of Pakistan’s tribal areas once again becoming the “most dangerous place on earth” is real.[3][3] >In its own research the Tribunal identifies sharp increase in terrorist attacks in recent years overall, as documents by the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies[4]: The perils of Taliban-led regime in Kabul have become unmistakably clear for Pakistan as the country has witnessed an unbelievable 51 per cent increase in the number of terrorist attacks in a single year since the militant group seized power in August last year.As many 433 people were killed and 719 wounded in 250 terrorist attacks in Pakistan between 15 August 2021 and 14 August 2022, according to details. In the corresponding year between15 August 2020 and 14 August 2021, the country witnessed 165 attacks that killed 294 people and injured 598 others.… The issue underlines that there is a wave of fear and panic among residents of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) over the reported return of TTP militants from Afghanistan in recent months.The publication quoting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) says that more than 300,000 Afghans have fled to Pakistan since the Taliban takeover. The figure confronts Pakistani authorities’ claim that about 60,000 to 70,000 Afghans have entered Pakistan since then.[4] Pakistan witnesses sharp increase in terrorist attacks since Taliban takeover, By PIPS, Published On Oct 19, 2022 >Events as recent as March 2024 indicated a further upswing in Taliban linked violence- there was an attack on Pakistan army post near the Afghan border which killed seven people, according to the Pakistan military, as reported by Al Jazeera. This occurred in the North Waziristan district, which is a similar distance from Peshawar, as the distance is between Swat valley and Peshawar. [5] [5] >I am satisfied that the incidents that he has described are well-supported by documentary evidence such as police reports. I have questioned the applicant in detail about various incidents and have no reason to believe that they did not occur or are exaggerated.There are cumulative additions to the claims through the membership of a peace committee. DFAT reports: 3.83In some conflict-affected areas, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, local communities or the Pakistani government have empowered local councils called ‘peace committees’ (aman jirga) to help oppose militant groups such as the TTP. According to a 2017 working paper by the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium, members of these committees ‘are appointed by the military or police in order to deal with security issues and to bring peace in an area, with the government giving them authority for out-of-court arbitration’. Villages may also form peace committees of their own accord. Despite their name, peace committees take many guises, ranging from ‘keeping an eye on’ terrorist activities to actual engagement against terrorist groups as armed tribal militias. 3.84 Multiple sources told DFAT that members of peace committees and their families were targeted for violence by militant groups (especially the TTP). Peace committees have themselves sometimes been accused of violence or human rights abuses (see Judiciary, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment). 3.85 DFAT assesses members of peace committees and their families are at moderate risk of violence by militant groups.I am accepting of his claims that he was in peace committee and may do so again and cumulatively this adds to his well-founded fear of persecution.Turning now to Pashtuns I observe that they comprise an estimated 15.4 per cent of the population of Pakistan, making them the second-largest ethnic group in the country after Punjabis. Pashtuns are found throughout Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the former FATA, in Karachi, Peshawar, Balochistan, Islamabad, Lahore and other urban areas. They are a very large group of some 31 million and are represented at all levels of society in Pakistan. I do not accept that this in and of itself attracts persecution for the applicant. His Pashtun identity is not in itself a ground for making this finding, but it is tied into an imputed point of view and political opinion as an ANP supporter and as particular social group, and possibly a western-influenced one. Another cumulative factor which would make him more vulnerable to attack, less able to defend himself and less likely to be able to relocation is the fact that (despite receiving ongoing psychiatric treatment) he continues to experience serious and ongoing depression and paranoia.As a further point, state protection in Pakistan is so generally poor that I do not find that the applicant has the prospect of assurance of successful prosecution for politically motivated or sectarian violence. Success is rare. This is due to ineffective police investigations, a lack of forensic capabilities and prosecution and judicial legal understanding, and threats against judges, lawyers, witnesses and their families.[6] Effective protection measures are not available to him in his receiving country. He could not take reasonable steps to modify his behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in his receiving country, other than a modification that would conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to his identity or conscience or conceal an innate or immutable characteristic.[6] DFAT Country Information Report, Pakistan 25 January 2022 [5.2]For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).DECISIONThe Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.Justin MeyerMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (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 familyFor 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 familyFor 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.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Pakistan for one or more of the five reasons set out, and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.Identity The applicant’s identity is established as [an age]-year-old male, as evidenced by a Pakistani passport, which was before the Department and the Tribunal confirming identity and nationality. Mental health Having noted the applicant’s claims of mental trauma over years, The Tribunal utilised the Tribunal’s guidelines on vulnerable persons and created an open, reassuring and supportive environment in order to establish a relationship of confidence and trust between the member and the applicant and facilitated the full disclosure of sensitive and personal information.Claims and evidence In his application to the department, the applicant claimed as follows:·He was born in [Village 1], Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, Pakistan ·He is a Pashtun and a Sunni Muslim, married with [number] children ·His life was in danger due to his membership of the Awami National Party (ANP) and a Village Defence Committee (VDC) so he deserted his ship in [Town 1], Australia ·After Swat was freed form Taliban rule in 2009, “Peace Committees” or “Lashkar Aman” were formed in every village. These later became Village Defence Committees (VDC) ·The military demanded that at least one adult male from each household should join a VDC and the applicant joined in 2009 ·As a VDC member, he had to cooperate fully with the army personnel, including informing the military about Taliban locations ·The VDC were targeted by the Taliban and many were killed or seriously injured ·He was threatened for the first time in February 2013 ·A warning letter was thrown outside his home, telling him to cease work with the VDC and the ANP ·He was scared but because of the army presence and his work as a seaman he ignored the warning ·After returning from a shipping contract in February 2014, he and his family went to live with his relatives in [Town 2]. He began a new shipping contract in October 2014 and his family then returned to [Village 1] ·He was threatened again by the Taliban on the telephone but again ignored it ·In May 2018 the applicant was attacked by the Taliban while returning home from the local mosque after evening prayers. Unknown assailants fired shots at him and he fled form the scene ·A few days after the attack he travelled to Karachi and awaited a new shipping contract ·In June 2018 he set sail and after the ship arrived in [Town 1] he deserted the ship ·If he returns to Pakistan he’ll be seriously harmed or killed ·There is no state protection or place to relocate as the Taliban have networks everywhere ·With a family to support it is not practical or reasonable for him to relocate to major cities such as Lahore or Islamabad