1912149 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 2230

1912149 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2230 (19 April 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:Ms Karyn Anderson
CASE NUMBER: 1912149

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Pakistan
MEMBER:Denis Dragovic
DATE:19 April 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 19 April 2023 at 2:09pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUFEE – protection visa – Pakistan – Federal Circuit Court remittal – imputed political opinion – Village Defence Committee family member – working for an NGO – particular social group – returnee from the West – kidnapping – forced assistance to Taliban – Taliban threat letters – internal relocation – mental health issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 91, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MZXTT v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1007
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 Immigration and Border Protection 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 13 March 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 30 March 2015. The delegate accepted the applicant’s claims of being kidnapped by the Taliban and having had two warning letters despatched to his family home by the Taliban finding that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution. Nevertheless, the delegate went on to find that the applicant could relocate to another part of Pakistan.
The matter was appealed by the applicant to the Tribunal, differently constituted. The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s claims of fearing harm such that he had a well-founded fear of persecution but found that the applicant could relocate to another part of Pakistan. As such the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate’s decision on 8 August 2016.
The matter was appealed and subsequently heard by [Judge A] [in] February 2019. In a decision by judgement ]Judge A] found that the Tribunal had not adequately considered all of the evidence before it when considering the reasonableness of relocation. Specifically, although the Tribunal member had noted the applicant’s ability to move throughout Pakistan and find work without his family, the Honourable Judge found that the member had not specifically addressed the applicant’s claim that as he would lack family support in any place to which he would move it would not be reasonable to expect him to relocate and as such there was jurisdictional error in the decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 November 2022 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.
RELEVANT LAW
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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s 91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.
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.
Applicant’s mental health
The applicant had not seen a mental health specialist regarding his mental health until just prior to the Tribunal hearing.
Regarding his past mental health strategies, he said that he had tried to manage it himself as he had some knowledge of mental health as [an occupation 1]. As some symptoms started to get more serious, he went to a General Practitioner (GP) thinking that he may have prostate problems. After tests he was given an all clear. Following this outcome, the GP recommended that he see a psychologist. He said that he was living in [a named region] at the time, and it was difficult to see a psychologist and in addition he did not want to go down that path and eventually be prescribed medication as he has concerns about long term use of such drugs.
Prior to the hearing the applicant participated in a psychosocial assessment based upon two video conference sessions with [Ms A], an experienced psychotherapist and counsellor. The first was a week before the hearing on the 28 October and the second on the 31 October 2022. I asked what prompted him to see a specialist a week before the hearing but a year after being prompted to go by his GP, he said that when he talked to his lawyer about his symptoms, she suggested to see someone.
A report dated 21 November 2022 was provided by [Ms A] in which she concluded that the applicant ‘presents with a range of severe psychological symptoms, which meet the diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’. In addition, she wrote that, ‘he suffers hyper-vigilance, problems with concentration and marked physiological reactions to internal and external cues that remind him of traumatic events.’
Following the completion of the hearing a request was made by the applicant for further time to provide a psychologist’s report. This was granted.
A report written by [Psychologist A], clinical psychologist, dated 12 February 2023 was provided to the Tribunal in a submission dated 8 March 2023. The report by [Psychologist A] is based upon a review of written material and a two-hour interview.
As the report was written under limited instructions from the applicant’s representative that appear to focus [Psychologist A] on the feasibility and impact of relocation within Pakistan, a further report was provided at the request of the Tribunal that had a broader scope. In this report, dated 14 March 2023, [Psychologist A] diagnoses the applicant with PTSD which in turn has ‘profoundly impacted on his social and occupational capacity’ along with traits of anxiety and depression.
Although the clinical psychologist’s report was provided after the hearing, I was aware of the circumstances of the applicant’s mental health prior to the hearing and as such approached the hearing with additional care noting guidance from the Tribunal’s Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Evidence and findings of fact
The applicant is from Swat district, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. His mother, [and specified family members] aged [ages] years old are living in Swat while [a] brother is in [Country 1] and another in Australia.
The applicant described his family as being upper middle class. His grandfather owned properties, a [farm] and a shop. The [farm] is not currently being directly managed by the family and instead is rented out.
Between [specified years], the applicant studied [an occupation 1 qualification] in Karachi.
The applicant stated in his statutory declaration that he and his family did not suffer any significant harm whilst living in Swat until 2008.
This first incident, upon which he claims a fear of harm were he to return to Pakistan, occurred on [a day in] December 2008 at 1am. He claims the Taliban came and grabbed him so as to provide [assistance] to two injured militants. He said that it was the third night of Eid and he was staying in his guest house as his friends were there. After his friends left Taliban members knocked at the door and asked him to come with them. He said that he asked them why, but they just said that he had to go with them.
In his statutory declaration of 2014, he detailed what happened next:
After approximately 12-15 minutes we arrived at the Taliban base known as [name] which is located approximately 1km away from our house. The base building was an empty house and this was the first time that I had been inside it. I was extremely fearful at this time as I had no idea why they had kidnapped me and assumed that they were going to kill me. I was forced into the base area and when inside I recognised two other men from my home village, [Mr A] and [Mr B]. I knew both of these men were [in similar professions] and knew [Mr A] was [an occupation 1]. Whilst I was inside the base, I watched both of these men being forced to [assist] Taliban militants. The Taliban men used guns pointed at their heads to force them to [assist the] militants.
The Taliban men instructed me to [assist the] militants and pointed guns at my head threatening me with death if I refused to help. I was extremely fearful for the safety of my life. I told them that I was [a] student and had limited [experience]. I told them that I did not have the right equipment required to [assist]. The Taliban men took [Mr A], [Mr B] and myself in the car with them and took us to a local [location] which was closed. They broke into the [building] and forced us to take whatever equipment we needed. The Taliban men pointed a gun at my head and told me that they would shoot me several times if I did not obey them. I had no choice but to obey the Taliban orders and I helped them to [assist the] militants during the night. I was released the following morning after [assisting]. I immediately contacted my family and explained what happened and confirmed that I was safe.
At the hearing the applicant explained that after the incident his brother told him that he could be a target of the Taliban or the Pakistan Army, so he was encouraged to return to Karachi where he was studying his [occupation 1 qualification], which he did.
Approximately two weeks after the incident, after the applicant had left Swat, he claims that his family received a note from the Taliban requesting him to join their base and work as [an occupation 1] for them. The applicant did not keep the letter, the letter was not threatening, he did not respond to it, and he claims that at the time he did not place a lot of significance on it.
He stayed in Karachi until he finished studies and then returned to Swat in November 2009 several months after the military operation that cleared the district of the Taliban.
The applicant remained in Swat for five to six months while searching for work. There are no claims that any incident of relevance occurred during this time. He then applied for and was selected for a job in [a named agency] in Islamabad. He remained there from April 2010 through to August 2010. While in Islamabad he lived in a hostel close to the [agency] which was open to all comers. His stay was paid for by the [agency].
The applicant stated that he was never approached or threatened in person while in Islamabad. He said that he largely went from the hostel to the [agency] and only visited other parts of Islamabad a few times preferring to stay inside due to his fears.
The applicant claims that he chose to leave his job at the Islamabad [agency] as he had heard that the Pakistan army were making enquiries about the whereabouts of all of the people from Swat. In addition, he heard that one of the other men the Taliban had kidnapped that night in 2008, [Mr B], had subsequently been taken by Pakistan’s military intelligence. The applicant claims that since then his whereabouts were unknown.
He said that [Mr A], the third person who was taken by the Taliban, is currently living in [a named country] and that he was also afraid of the military.
The applicant stated that while he was working in the [agency] his family was visited by the Pakistan army and they enquired about him.
Fearing that living in Islamabad would make it easier for the military to find him, he decided to leave the [agency] and instead join [Agency 1], a group the applicant described as a [Country 2] NGO, in [a] small village in rural Sindh. He claimed that the location was so isolated that he was living in a tent.
Through 2010 the applicant claims that his family received two more letters from the Taliban. The first was received in around April again requesting him to work as [an occupation 1] for them (this was the third such request). It was also not threatening.
The second letter received in 2010, was in November, after he had moved from Islamabad to work for the [Country 2] NGO. In this letter the language was explicitly threatening. A copy was provided and is reproduced below:
Taliban Movement in Swat is warning [the applicant] for the last time to avoid working with infidel's N.G.O
As per our directive and decree of our leader whoever is mixing up with infidel and working with them are obliged to death, and their death is allowed.
Taliban Movement in Swat is giving you this warning for the last time to quit working with infidel's N.G.O otherwise we will apply our rule on you.
In a post-hearing submission, the applicant’s brother provided a statutory declaration that had been prepared for his own protection visa application. In it, he explained that following the 2008 incident involving his brother (the applicant) the family received threatening letters that included words to the effect that the family were next in line to be killed.

The applicant said that he felt safe in Sindh because they had guards, he didn’t go out and it was a rural, isolated area.
The applicant’s employment with [Agency 1] ended in December 2010 as the project they were working on was completed. He then chose to return to Swat joining [Agency 2] in March 2011 as [an occupation 1] in [Town 1]. At the hearing he explained that his aunt lived there.
The applicant said that he continued to be fearful of the military while he was in [Town 1] as they were seeking out individuals who they believed were affiliated with the Taliban. He wrote in his 2014 statutory declaration:
I did not feel confident in being able to explain to the Pakistani Military Intelligence the circumstances of my forced kidnapping and the fact that I was forced to assist the Taliban as I knew that they were taking Taliban affiliates away without providing opportunities to clarify the situation. I also believed that many Taliban members were also infiltrators working in the Pakistani Military Intelligence and I really did not trust any authorities in Pakistan.
The applicant claims that he then applied for a student visa to study in Australia and moved to Australia in January 2012. Before departing Pakistan, the applicant continued to live and work in [Town 1], Swat District. He claims that his intention was to give the military time to clear out the Taliban and that he would return after his studies in Australia.
While studying in Australia, in 2013 his family told him that it was safe in Swat for him to visit and so he departed Australia on [a day in] June 2013. During this return visit on or around [three days later in] June 2013 while he was staying in Swat with his family, the applicant claims that he received a threatening letter from the Taliban. A copy was provided to the Department and the translation is reproduced here:
As of our continued warning to you; [the applicant] instead of accepting our advice you carried out the work with infidels.
You are studying in non-Muslim country, and mixing up with hell residents, and you are following secularism, you did not just follow virtual way, thus you become active against us.
You become active in aspects that we banned them, you do not believe in our holly war but you put your live in danger.
Taliban Movement in Swat is proclaiming your death in the light of our council decision, you are obliged to death.
The verdict will be carried out and whoever can kill you will be awarded.
We commanding our friends to follow you up, you will be responsible of your own death.
The applicant claims that after receiving the letter he moved to his aunt’s house in [Town 1] and remained there through to the [date] July 2013. He claims that it was at this point that he realized the situation was not getting any better and that he would apply for asylum upon his return to Australia.
The applicant claimed in his pre-hearing statutory declaration that he believes that the Taliban have targeted his brother, [Brother A], because he is a member of the Village Defence Committee (VDC), worked for an NGO, the [Agency 3], and helped the applicant escape.
Information was provided by the applicant and brother that [Brother A] received a call in July 2013 from someone claiming to be Taliban, threatening him but offering [Brother A] an opportunity to convince the applicant to join the Taliban and that by doing so it would lead to both brothers being forgiven.
Regarding his brother’s membership of the VDC, at the hearing the applicant said that he believed [Brother A] had remained a VDC member until an attack in 2015 when he was returning from his NGO job in a car with his [Brother B], who is a lawyer. In the March 2023 statutory declaration, the applicant states that his brother ceased being a member of the VDC in 2013 after receiving the above-mentioned phone call and decided for his safety to take up work as [an occupation 2]. In [Brother A’s] statutory declaration which was written for the purposes of his own protection application there is no mention of his membership of the VDC which is of great concern considering that being a member of a VDC can be a basis upon which claims for protection are made. In a separate statement by [Brother A], which explains that it is for the purposes of providing further details relevant to his brother’s claims, he states that he was a member of the VDC. I have serous concerns about the applicant’s and witness’ claims of the brother being a member of a VDC based on the inconsistent information but giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, I accept that [Brother A] was a member.
I also accept that [Brother A] worked for an NGO, the [Agency 3], and that he helped his brother in his departure from Pakistan to Australia.
The applicant said at the hearing that a lot of VDC members were attacked or killed and that his brother would receive information from the military that the Taliban were searching for him. The applicant referenced as an example the killing of Idris Khan in the previous month, a prominent leader of another VDC. I noted that he is a brother of a member while Idris Khan is a prominent member of the VDC. The applicant responded that his concerns arise from his personal issues.
The applicant believes that the Taliban pursue the eldest person and as he is the second oldest there is a risk that he will be the target in the future. He said that people know that if you are a close family member of a VDC member that people take extra pre-cautions. I put to him that his brother hasn’t been a member for 8-10 years depending upon which claims is being made. He said that it is simply because he was once a member and that this carries a risk.
Regarding the claimed attack in 2015, the applicant’s two brothers were driving a car when they were shot at. The applicant explained that [Brother B] was injured in the leg. In [Brother A’s] protection visa application statutory declaration he writes that his brother was shot in the hand and leg. The applicant said that due to the gunfire, his two brothers crashed the car, and both [Brother A] and [Brother B] were injured as a result of the accident. The applicant claims that the two brothers subsequently fled Swat and moved to Karachi.
In the March 2023 statutory declaration further claims about his brother’s circumstances were provided including that in December 2017 [Brother A] had returned to Swat and received a note at the door of the house saying that the Taliban were aware of his return and that he would be targeted. Following this incident, it is claimed that [Brother A] fled to Karachi at which point he received two phone calls on his mobile threatening him.
The applicant wrote in his statutory declaration that his brother, [Brother B], fled to [Country 1] and has since been granted asylum. Regarding [Brother A], the applicant claims that he took up [an occupation 2 job] that would see him away for 6- or 7-month periods. While back in Pakistan he claims that he would go to wherever he believed it to be safe at the time. The applicant explained that [Brother A] then fled to Australia where he has sought protection and his application is being considered.
Throughout this period the applicant’s [other] brothers were going in and out of Swat while they were completing their studies in Peshawar, Karachi and for one brother, [Country 3]. As of the hearing [these] brothers were living in Swat with [a family member and their] mother.
Consideration of evidence and findings of fact
I have considered the applicant’s claims of his other brother being granted asylum in [Country 1]. While I accept that he has been granted asylum not knowing for what unique reasons he applied and was granted asylum and that the law is different in [Country 1] to Australia leads me to place no weight on that evidence when considering the applicant’s claims.
I now turn to consider the evidence of the applicant and the claims he has made arising from his narration of events. Firstly, I accept that the applicant was taken against his will to [assist members of the] Taliban in 2008. This was a tumultuous period as discussed further below and there was extensive fighting in the area. It is plausible that someone with the training that the applicant has would be called to assist, though, some doubts were raised in my mind considering that two [similar] professionals were already on hand.
The applicant claimed that subsequently he received three written approaches to join the Taliban, the third and last of the requests to join the Taliban being in 2010. Again, I accept this as it aligns with country information that describes a Taliban seeking out new recruits.
The applicant claims that his family were delivered a threatening letter while he was working on the other side of the country in a rural location where he hardly went out and the Taliban are not active. While it appears highly unlikely that the Taliban would know of his activities first-hand, it is possible that through his family speaking to friends and in turn the wider community becoming aware of what the applicant was doing that news filtered to the Taliban. But, if the threat letters were genuine, it is vexing that the family would be free with news of their son’s whereabouts considering he had moved to Sindh for fear of being harmed by the military who would also hear the same news being spread through the community.
The second letter that contained threatening elements was claimed to have been received a few days after the applicant had returned to Swat on a visit from Australia. Of note is the rapidity of the letter’s delivery. The applicant departed Australia on [a day in] June 2013 and estimates the letter to have been delivered around [three days later]. If this is a genuine letter then the Taliban had a very active information network in his village and an equally fast decision making process that delivered a written threat to the family’s home.
Assuming that the Taliban were as actively engaged as the applicant claims and determined to make their wishes known by writing a threat letter while he was on the other side of the country and another year later days after returning to Swat following an absence from the country of more than a year then the question is how did no harm befall the applicant through the long periods that he spent in Swat? The applicant was in Swat from November 2009 to March 2010, then from August 2010 to September 2010 and again from December 2010 to January 2012 and after receiving the second threating letter he remained in Swat for over a month. In total, while he was in his family home in [village name] or his aunt’s home in [Town 1], the applicant spent 19 months in Swat.
In trying to reconcile these claims, namely that the Taliban were intent on harming him and had a very efficient network such that they knew where he was whether on the other side of the country or just having returned days earlier from overseas, with his remaining in Swat for 19 months, of which 14 months covered the period after the first threat letter, there are a number of possibilities. It is possible that the Taliban have the capacity to quickly convey threat letters but not the capacity to do harm, which is unlikely as reinforced by the country information discussed with the applicant at the hearing that shows substantial violence continued to occur in those years. It is also possible that their intention was never to do harm due to his relatively low level of value to them but there was benefit in intimidating him. Or the letters were not genuine. I give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that the letters are genuine. I do not accept that the Taliban did not have the capacity to pursue vendettas or strategic targets. Instead, I find that the applicant was not of such interest that limited resources and the risk of the loss of those resources would be spent on pursuing him.
The applicant claimed that at the same time the military was interested in him. He claimed that while he was working in Islamabad in 2010 what he believes to be the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) came to his family’s home asking about him. He claimed that for fear of what may happen to him he moved away from the [local] job he had in Islamabad and instead joined a [Country 2] NGO.
He said that anyone who deals with the Taliban is of interest to the army. He gave the example of a famous intersex local who was taken by the Taliban to cook for them. When the army moved in and freed him, the Army took him away even though the local people knew that he was innocent. He claims that the man was brutally tortured by the army and that no one knows what happened to him since.
I noted that he was [an occupation 1] and had lived in the official residence of the [agency] suggesting that the government would be able to find him easily. He claimed that the ISI would need to contact other agencies to find him in Islamabad. I put to him that they are a national body working throughout Pakistan and that they could do that if necessary. I questioned why they wouldn’t be able to find him, noting that they are the most powerful intelligence service in Pakistan.[1] He responded that the ISI has different branches and maybe the branch in Swat didn’t think that he was important enough to keep using their resources to find him.
[1] >
I put to the applicant that the [Agency 1] isn’t non-governmental but rather that it is a part of the [Country 2] government’s [Ministry 1]: ‘[Deleted].’[2] I suggested that it would be doubtful that the intelligence services didn’t know who worked for them, suggesting that they would track anyone working for a foreign military entity. The applicant responded that to the Taliban or local people anyone who comes from the West to work in Pakistan is considered as working for an NGO. He said that he doesn’t know if there would be greater attention by the Pakistan government because it is a military agency of [Country 2].
[2] [Source deleted.]
I read to him that in 2017 some years after he left, ‘An intelligence official told Dawn, a leading daily paper, that some of the NGOs were contributing to a “hybrid war” against Pakistan and also “encouraging sectarianism, promoting a foreign agenda, supporting hostile spy agencies, collecting illegal data and operating without any legal backing.”’[3] I said that this concern over foreign interference is a long term concern of intelligence agencies in Pakistan. I noted that after the Osama bin Laden raid in 2015 and the implication of Save the Children’s peripheral involvement, international organisations were banned.[4] The applicant agreed. He said that maybe ISI is not sharing information between different divisions and across the country. He said that probably in his case they didn’t share information across the country based on the level of his profile.
[3] ‘Aid to 11 million at risk as Pakistani intelligence gives 18 charities and NGOs their marching orders’, Dawn, 18 October 2018 ‘Pakistan orders Save the Children to leave country’, BBC, 12 June 2015, ‘Pakistan orders expulsion of 29 international NGOs’, Financial Times, 14 December 2017,
I put to him employees of [Agency 1] would be on the radar of ISI, he responded that it could be the case.
I asked why he thought the Pakistan authorities would still be interested in him in 2023. He said that if he is in their system there is a possibility that his past will be brought back to their attention through triggers such as when his ID is checked if he rents a house in an area where is not born. He said that this process obliges the landlord to bring the ID to the police. I noted that ISI didn’t seem interested in pursuing him in Islamabad shortly after his engagement with the Taliban and as such I asked why they would share information with local police if they hadn’t even appeared to have bothered to share information across their own branches. He said that if you are from the FATA area or Swat then the police have different security checks.
I asked the applicant about how he left through the airport or passed through checkpoints if he was a person of interest to the military intelligence. He said that he believes it is the ISI that was pursuing him and that they work differently. He said that they don’t just go to the court and ask for permission to inform FIA, who manages exit control lists at the airport as the police would, but rather the ISI can come at any place at any time and take people away.
In considering the applicant’s claims of being of interest to the Pakistan authorities for reason of being perceived to have helped the Taliban in 2008 I note that he held a job as [an occupation 1] in a major [agency] in the capital city of Pakistan. He stayed in a public hostel and not a private home. He joined an international organisation that is an arm of a foreign military. He repeatedly returned to Swat where he was known and spent considerable periods of time there. He passed in and out of the Pakistan airport three times. Even accepting the applicant’s response that the ISI does not need to go through the courts, it would simply add to concerns that he was able to bypass controls that the ISI have to monitor migration at international airports. While I acknowledge and accept that a government agency enquired about him in 2010, that since then despite having numerous touch points with the authorities and working with an international organisation that is tied to a foreign military, and yet at no stage being enquired about again or approached is strongly indicative of the applicant not being of interest to the authorities. As such I find that in 2023 the Pakistan authorities are not actively pursuing the applicant and they do not have the applicant on any watch list or that he is a person of interest.
Regarding the applicant’s claims of the harm his brother faced in 2015 when they were driving in a vehicle and were shot at by what they assumed were Taliban, I am concerned that this event occurred prior to the previous Tribunal’s hearing (9 June 2016) and decision (8 August 2016) and yet was not raised by the applicant. The applicant explains this in his latest statutory declaration where he introduced the evidence by stating that he would regularly call his family, but they would always tell him that everything was fine. He claimed that he did not learn about it until his brother had moved to [Country 1].
I have concerns regarding the applicant’s claims for not providing the evidence earlier. It would have been noticeable that his brothers were no longer present at the family home when he called, that [Brother B] would have been out of contact due to being [away for work] and [Brother A] possibly also during his travel across [Country 4], yet he claims his family would tell him everything was fine and so he didn’t know of what had happened. Despite my concerns, noting that there could be alternative explanations, I give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that his brothers were shot at in 2015.
Country information of the general security situation
Prior to considering the specific claims of harm I will engage with the security situation in Swat. The reason for turning to this consideration at this early stage is that a perilous security environment amplifies certain individual risks, including many of the type the applicant fears, whereas a more secure environment mitigates them. When there is chaos that accompanies conflict, as there was during the height of violence in 2009 and 2010, targeted killings, retribution, political assassination and other forms of violence can and did occur with virtual impunity. With greater security these events are constrained if not eliminated. To undertake this assessment of the security environment, I shared with the applicant quantitative information including the number of terrorist incidents and civilian deaths as well as qualitative assessments. I also considered country information presented by the applicant.

At the hearing I shared a graph that compiled conflict related fatalities data in Pakistan from three independently run databases showing a peak of deaths reaching over 12,000 in 2009 and then seeing a steady decline to 2011 where it plateaued at around 6,000 deaths and then in 2015 a further steady decline down to a few hundred.[5] I noted this substantial decrease in deaths relative to the situation when he was last in Pakistan. I put to him that the data would suggest that the situation can be described as relatively safe and asked for his comments. In response he said that the deaths have increased. He added that journalists are not allowed in some areas and not all information is released. I noted that this would have been true throughout this period. He emphasized that over the last few months the situation is getting worse. He explained that when the Afghan Taliban took over in Afghanistan, the Pakistan military negotiated with the Taliban without the knowledge of the government or the people. At the same time he noted that the Taliban began appearing in Swat. He listed some incidents of killings including situations in which an army officer killed a civilian which he said blurred the lines and leaves people confused.
[5] Political Violence in South Asia: The Triumph of the State? - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2020 >
We discussed Swat terrorism related fatalities which show that whereas the peak in 2009 reached 402 civilian deaths in a year, the last several years have seen no deaths or single digit deaths.[6] I again put to him that this would suggest that the situation in Swat is relatively safe. He said that there are targeted killings happening with Taliban members walking in front of military personnel with their weapons. He suggested that the conflict will start again in the future. He mentioned a huge protest in Swat that he claimed that it was against the militancy and the army. He again questioned how the militants were entering Swat as there are no borders with Afghanistan.
[6] South Asia Terrorism Portal – Swat
I put to him that it could be that the Taliban are in Swat because the head of the TTP has instructed militants to stop targeting civilians, as it is acknowledged to be undermining popular support and instead focus on the military and government representatives.[7] He then referenced the death of children in front of a school. This incident was reported as occurring in Swat on the 10 October 2022 but did not involve the death of any children, only the driver was killed. He said that the army had been forcefully and unfairly requisitioning land to build bases in Swat.
[7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘DFAT Country Report: Pakistan’ 25 January 2022 at [2.40]
I noted that military operations were occurring in North and South Waziristan but in the reporting on such actions there is no mention of military operations in Swat.[8] I put to him that this is indicative that in Swat the situation is calmer. He said that the military operations have been going on non-stop for twenty or twenty-five years.
[8] Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, ‘Pakistan Security Report 2021’, at [4.1.1]
The applicant suggested that the situation in Afghanistan was heightening tensions and would lead to a higher risk for him. I put to him that there is country information that indicates that the Afghan Taliban directed militants to move away from border areas and that they are continuing to contribute to the facilitation of peace talks.[9] I asked whether he saw the role of the Taliban in Afghanistan as stabilising. He said that there is no difference between Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban and the Pakistan army. He believes that the TTP were in Pakistan with the acquiescence of the army and suggests that this is occurring despite there being a fenced border.
[9] Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, ‘Perspectives from Pakistan on Afghan Peace and Reconciliation: Quarterly Monitor-4’, April to June 2022
I note that in the submissions by the applicant’s representative a considerable number of references were made to civilian deaths in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and analysis of the situation in the former FATA districts within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. While providing a perspective on the security situation across the province provides some insight, I place greater weight on district level information and statistics which are more representative of the circumstances to which the applicant will be returning to. This is particularly the case as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a large province and Swat is in the northeast not bordering Afghanistan whereas the majority of conflict, as per the country information provided by the applicant,[10] is in the Waziristan districts which are in the south west along the border with Afghanistan. For similar reasons, references to Baloch separatists in Baluchistan, a separate province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provides some context but in my overall considerations I place far less weight on security incidents and analysis of the situation outside of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
[10] Page 10 of the submission dated 28 October 2022
The representative also provided information that questioned the efficacy of peace talks. I accept the arguments underlying these submissions. A peace agreement cannot be foreseen and as such I place no weight on the peace talks and the associated ‘ceasefire’ that was temporarily agreed upon.
The applicant claims that people are now seeing Taliban moving around Swat with weapons as they did before. He said that it is hard to understand how they are coming to Swat when they don’t border Afghanistan, and hence he believes that there is some collaboration between the army and the Taliban. He believes that the government allows the Taliban to operate so as to garner financial assistance from Western governments who don’t want the Taliban to establish a foothold.
I also note that in the package of post hearing submissions there are inferences in the country information of a view that the Pakistan government is receiving support from the Afghan Taliban government to find a solution alongside alternative competing commentary on how the Afghan Taliban government is not doing enough.
While the situation shows signs of deterioration, there are also strong factors that support a view that the security situation won’t revert to the levels of previous years including the anger towards the Taliban expressed by the community in the protest that the applicant referenced; a change in tactics by the Taliban to target military, police and government personnel and to avoid civilians; along with the overall low levels of incidents in Swat. As highlighted by the country information provided by the representative, there are many competing factors in play locally and geopolitically that influence the situation in north-western Pakistan. Taking all of this into consideration, I find that the security situation in Swat in 2023 and into the reasonably foreseeable future will continue as it was in 2022. I conclude that the security situation can be described as moderately safe. I now turn to considering the specific circumstances of the applicant.
Considerations
The applicant has expressed concerns over his mental health and that it would deteriorate if he were to return.
Regarding any possible treatment for his mental health in Pakistan, [Ms A], the psychotherapist and counsellor notes, ‘In addition, he believes that medical or psychological services are such that he would not access them for fear of inadequate or harmful treatment.’
[Psychologist A], the clinical psychologist, diagnosed the applicant with posttraumatic stress disorder with associated depressive symptoms ‘as a consequence of the events experienced with the Taliban’ and that he may have obsessive compulsive disorder. While I accept the qualifications of [Psychologist A] and his psychological assessment of PTSD and associated depressive symptoms, the Tribunal is the finder of fact and is not bound to accept the opinions of a medical practitioner as to the truth of the applicant’s claims for the visa including whether they arise from events relating to the Taliban.[11]
[11] MZXTT v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1007 at [37]-[41].
With regards to the psychological assessment, [Psychologist A’s] report notes:
Given [the applicant’s] current psychological condition and these deeply held beliefs, I am of the opinion that a return to the Swat Valley would lead to a significant deterioration in his psychological condition and associated functional capacity. I hold this opinion irrespective of whether or not [the applicant’s] fears regarding his safety are well grounded or otherwise…If he were to live in circumstances in which he felt highly at risk his condition would worsen. This would occur irrespective of actual events and irrespective of the accuracy of his perceptions regarding the level of risk.
He also added that without appropriate treatment his situation would deteriorate.
[Psychologist A] concludes in his report from March 2023 by writing, ‘while living in his home area would allow the provision of family support, increase access to accommodation and employment, and reduce the risk of discrimination, these factors would not counteract the negative consequences arising from significantly increased anxiety.’

100. There are two important considerations that arise from the report, the first is that the applicant’s mental health is driven by external triggers that exist regardless of whether they are well-founded. The impact of these triggers leads to the second issue and that is a deterioration in his mental health. As the applicant’s mental health further deteriorates it will have an impact on his functioning and potentially upon how he is received and perceived in society.
101. There is no material before me that suggests that the Pakistani state discriminatorily withholds mental health services. There is evidence to suggest that there are insufficient health services available but this is not the test either for s 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa). That the applicant’s risks may be exacerbated are best considered as factors that impact each claim and as such are incorporated in the following discussion.
102. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Pakistan and provided various documents in support of his identity including a passport. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept that the applicant is a citizen of Pakistan, and that Pakistan is his country of nationality and receiving country.
103. When considering the risk the applicant faces and in referring to ‘the Taliban’ I include in that nomenclature all violent jihadist groups using terrorism in Pakistan including any splinter groups within the Taliban and those outside the official organisational structure of the TTP but still fighting against the government such as Islamic State of Khorasan.
104. In considering the applicant’s past circumstances and the Taliban’s interest in him, I found that the applicant was not of such interest that limited human resources, and the risk of the loss of those human resources, would be spent on pursuing him during the periods that he was present in Swat. As noted, the security situation has markedly improved since then despite there being a recent uptick in violence. I also note that it has been ten years since the last threat letter relating to the applicant, a period when the Taliban who knew him or were interested in him may have moved away, died or repented and shifted away from their past Jihadist ways. While it is possible that the Taliban maintain some sort of database of persons of interest, that he was not harmed previously while the security situation was more fluid and attacks more feasible would indicate that either he wasn’t on such a list or he wasn’t of a high enough value even then for the Taliban to take any action.
105. I asked him about Taliban record keeping. He said that he is not sure of how organised they are. He said that there are clear examples of people who have been threatened by the Taliban and have eventually been killed. He gave the example of Idress Khan for whom country information was provided. I accept that as a general principle there are people who are successfully pursued by the Taliban across the years, but the example given was of a different profile than the applicant. I noted that Idress Khan was a prominent VDC member.[12] In response, he said that people know each other very well. He said that if someone has an enmity towards you, they will remember you, recalling a saying that if you want to take revenge on someone do it after a hundred years. The meaning of this proverb was that drawing out the anticipation of harm is a form of harm in of itself.
[12] ‘Anti-Taliban tribal leader among 5 killed in Pakistan bombing’ I note that the applicant’s brother spoke of the family receiving letters from the Taliban after the applicant’s 2008 ordeal stating that other members were next in line to be killed. The last threat letter the brother received was in 2013 and included a mention of the applicant. While it is possible that the 2015 incident was an example of a follow up from the threat letters, I note that no other member of the family was harmed during the 7 years prior and no one in the 8 years since then.
107. When considered overall, considering the limited level of interest in him previously including his low-level profile, the time that has passed and the moderately safe security environment, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from the Taliban or other militant Islamist groups for reasons of their past interest in him. This consideration is not influenced by his current mental state nor by how it may deteriorate as the risk derives from external parties’ knowledge of the applicant from the past. Even if his presence was to come to be known which may be impacted by a weakened mental health state, harming the applicant requires the Taliban deploying resources at some risk which I have found they would not do due to his low-level profile and the moderately safe environment.
108. The applicant also raised concerns about harm that may in the future arise because of the type of work he does. What is known is that according to the applicant, which I accept, he cannot practice as [an occupation 1] as his registration has lapsed such that it cannot be renewed unless the applicant returns to studying [an occupation 1 qualification]. He claims to have a passion for community or social work which is supported by his studies in Australia and the line of work he has chosen to pursue while in Australia, but whether such employment will be available to him is speculative regardless of his passion for it. The applicant has not worked in that field in Pakistan before. There is no indication that even were the employment opportunities to exist that he would be selected for such a role. The applicant’s family have a [farm] that is currently rented out, they have an income. They may choose to not extend the rental in the future and for the applicant to take over.
109. Noting that the applicant has PTSD and associated depressive symptoms I accept that the applicant may find it hard to maintain a job as he has struggled to in Australia. But even in such a situation, the harm he would face including potentially losing his job or generating a more modest income than he would hope by undertaking independent work, arises from a medical condition and not discriminatory behaviour by others.
110. As there are many pathways that the applicant’s future may take, it would be speculative to determine which would be available to him, but for the purposes of this decision regardless of what employment option the applicant ends up pursuing, there would not be harm deliberately inflicted on him to fall within the Convention or the Complementary Protection test, specifically, I find that the options available to the applicant would not lead to an intentionality of harm being brought to bear for a Convention reason or of the type required for complementary protection. This finding is not one that requires the applicant to change his behaviour but rather is a finding arising from the possible options available to him in Swat, Pakistan.
111. The applicant expressed a concern that the Pakistan authorities were a risk to him. That the whereabouts of the other person who provided medical assistance in 2008 is unknown after he was believed to have been taken by the Army is more relevant to the past situation than the threat the applicant faces into the future fifteen years later. I found earlier that as of 2023 the Pakistan authorities are not actively pursuing the applicant and they do not have the applicant on any watch list or that he is a person of interest. As such I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from the Pakistan authorities. That the applicant has mental health concerns and that his situation may deteriorate upon return does not affect this finding.
112. The applicant’s representative listed his Pashtun ethnicity as being a reason for fearing harm but only in the context of relocation which was discussed at the hearing. No claims were made, nor is there evidence available to the Tribunal, to suggest that the applicant as a Pashtun in a Pashtun area of Pakistan would be at risk of harm for reasons of being Pashtun.
113. The applicant claimed to fear harm arising from being a returnee from a Western country and for having left Pakistan to pursue study and work opportunities in Australia. I read to the applicant from the DFAT report that ‘DFAT assesses that returnees to Pakistan do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination purely as a result of their attempt to migrate, or purely because they have lived in a Western country.’[13] I put to him that this would suggest that having studied and lived in Australia there wouldn’t be a real risk of significant harm or real chance of serious harm to him. He said that you can’t remove the past. He noted that there are a lot of students who come here from Pakistan, and they go back to Pakistan and it’s not an issue. He said that the letter from the Taliban references his studying in a foreign country and that he lives in a country of infidels. When considering his profile as a returnee from the West on its own including the accepted knowledge by the Taliban of this fact, as the applicant has agreed, in of itself this does not lead him to face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
114. The applicant expressed fear of harm arising from his brother formerly being a member of a VDC. In considering the risk the applicant faces as a result of his brother’s involvement in the VDC the representative referenced a DFAT report at [3.84] in which it refers to family members facing ‘moderate risk’ of violence. The submission then goes on to argue that ‘This suggests a level of risk far greater than a ‘real chance’’. I disagree. Moderate risk is defined by DFAT in their reports to mean that ‘DFAT is aware of sufficient incidents to suggest a pattern of behaviour.’ A pattern of behaviour refers to something other than random events. It is relevant to the decision-making process as a well-founded fear of harm must involve ‘systematic and discriminatory’ conduct (as per s 91R(1)(c)) and under complementary protection there must be an actual, subjective intention to inflict harm. A moderate or high risk in DFAT parlance may be aligned with a real chance of serious harm, or it may not; the circumstances of each applicant will determine the case as will contextual country information.

115. I note that the applicant’s family excluding the two brothers involved in the 2015 attack have not been harmed during the most tumultuous years including while the applicant’s brother, [Brother A], was with the VDC from 2010-2013/15. While the past can’t be a predictor for the future, I do place some weight on this lived experience. There is evidence including what was provided by the applicant’s representative that VDC members are targeted by the Taliban and in some cases are killed. But not all VDC members are targeted and not all are killed and certainly not all family members.
116. The applicant has claimed directly or through submissions from his brother, that [Brother A] experienced harm including a threatening letter from 2013 that included a reference to the applicant, being involved in a shooting in 2015 in which the motivation or the target is unclear and in 2017 receiving another letter and two phone calls. Since then, no family members including [male] brothers have been harmed.
117. Giving the applicant and his brother the benefit of the doubt, I accepted that this occurred but note that the applicant is the brother of the recipient of the threats and attacks. In addition, the motivation for the attack which occurred eight years ago is unclear and the last threat that any member of the family received was six years ago. Any threat that exists, such as is described in the DFAT report, would be reduced for the reason of [Brother A] not having been a VDC member for at least eight years and evidenced by the fact that the [male] brothers who have continued to move in and out of Swat have been unharmed. That there are no claims that any other brothers are members of the VDC or have been harmed, leads me to find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from his association with his brother who was a former VDC member.
118. The nature of the threat, namely that it arises from the Taliban pursuing vengeance against the family of the applicant and inadvertently or intentionally harming the applicant is not influenced by the applicant’s additional mental health vulnerability.
119. I have also considered [Brother A’s] other occupation as a member of an NGO. No claims were made and no basis for a claim arises from the material before the Tribunal relating to applicant being the brother of someone who worked in the past for an NGO.
120. Earlier I found that the Taliban may have sent threatening letters to intimidate the applicant. I accept that this may happen to him into the future. Threatening letters can in of themselves lead to harm in the form of emotional and psychological harm, but it is for the Tribunal to determine whether any harm including psychological and emotional harm amounts to serious or significant harm.
121. The applicant has a mental health vulnerability that would exacerbate a perceived threat causing him further psychological harm. But I note that both he and his family have received multiple threatening letters in the past with nothing happening in any timeframe that could be associated with the threat letters. For this reason, I find that any future letters would have a lower impact on the applicant’s psychology by way of a fear of imminent harm. I have also taken into consideration the insights into the applicant’s diagnosed ailments by the mental health specialists and their assessments provided to the Tribunal. When considered as a whole, I find that while there is a real chance that some psychological harm will occur, the harm to the applicant does not amount to serious harm even taking into consideration the vulnerabilities of the applicant. Similarly, I find that there is a real risk that harm will arise but that it does not amount to significant harm.
[13] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘DFAT Country Report: Pakistan’ 25 January 2022 at [5.31]
Cumulative considerations
122. I now turn my mind to consider the applicant’s claims cumulatively noting his particular mental health vulnerability. The applicant has had a history with the Taliban such that he was known to members about 15 years ago. Thereafter he received a number of threat letters, the last of which was in 2013 (after which he hasn’t returned to Pakistan). The applicant’s brothers were involved in an attack and received threat letters, but how these actions relate to the applicant is only by way of familial proximity. I have not accepted that the attack on them arises from any consequence that arise from their relationship to the applicant. I also accepted that the applicant’s brother was a member of the VDC approximately a decade earlier. I noted that no incidents occurred involving family members and that [brothers] of the applicant continue to live Swat. I accepted that the applicant is and will be perceived to be a returnee from the West and all that entails. I accepted that there is a real chance that the applicant will receive some intimidatory threat letters in the future. All of this has to be considered against the backdrop of the applicant’s mental health and the diagnosis given by the two health professionals. When considered cumulatively, and specifically considering how one of the claims may amplify the risk or impact of another, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.
123. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

126. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Denis Dragovic
Deputy President