1913019 (Refugee)

1913019 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4477 (9 October 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Abhinav Goyal (MARN: 1800208)
CASE NUMBER:  1913019
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Michael Simmons
DATE:9 October 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 09 October 2024 at 11:16am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Pakistan – religion – Shia Muslim – fear harm from anti-Shia militia groups – religious and community work – financial support for Shia welfare organisations – do not accept that the first named applicant was threatened or specifically targeted – situation for Shias in Karachi is currently stable – delay in applying for protection in Australia – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 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 dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 17 May 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Pakistan, applied for the visas on 9 July 2018.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 31 July 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicants were 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 protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicants face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm were they to return to Pakistan. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Migration history
The first named applicant received his first Australian student visa in March 2010 and came to Australia in April 2010. From March 2010 until November 2014, he held a serious of student visas and bridging visas. In November 2014 he was granted a subclass 457 temporary work visa which ceased in December 2016. From this time the applicant has held a number of bridging visas, including up until and following the lodgement of his protection visa application in July 2018.
The first and second named applicant claimed they were married in October 2014. The second named applicant has been present in Australia since June 2015, as a dependent applicant on her husband’s visas.
It is claimed that the third named applicant is the child of the first and second named applicant. She was born in Australia in [year] and has held the same visa status has her parents since then.
Protection claims
Visa application
On the visa application form only the first named applicant raised protection claims. The second and third named applicants both indicated that they do not have their own claims for protection. The first named applicant discussed his past experiences and future fears in Pakistan, relevantly indicating:
·He came to Australia to save his life and for a bright future. Pakistan and specifically his city Karachi is not safe for the Shia community.
·He experienced harm when he was living in Pakistan and after that when he went back for his wedding and for his brother’s wedding. A few months ago his family received threats and letters from banned organisations.
·The applicant informed the armed forces and police, but the police themselves fear the Taliban and other banned organisation because they also target them. They couldn't help the applicant. Some of them also support banned outfits.
·The applicant moved to different cities of Pakistan but he was not safe in any part of the country. When he moved he was located and attacked. After some time they targeted one of his relatives in Hyderabad.
·If he returns to Pakistan he is afraid that he will be subjected to serious harm including that he will be killed. The applicant is afraid of this harm from anti-Shia militia groups like Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), Sepahe Sahaba, Jamaat ul dawa. He has already witnessed the death of his friends he knows many other Shias who have been killed.
·If he returns to his country he is 100% sure they will kill him, like his other friend who came back from overseas and was killed by banned outfit, another one was injured.
·The authorities cannot protect the applicant because they are not able to protect their families so how they can protect and secure other people or citizen of that country. Taliban and other banned outfit also attack on their families and also on Army Public School and Headquarters many times.
Prior to the interview with the delegate, the first named applicant provide an undated document entitled ‘case statement’. The material details of that document may be summarised as follows:
·The first named applicant is a resident of Karachi Pakistan and belongs to Shia Muslim religious background. He is frequently involved in mourning and voluntary work like helping community families and friends.
·His daughter has [Medical Condition 1].
·Shia Muslims have been targeted and persecuted by anti-Shia militia (TTP, Lashkar-e-jhangvi, Sipha-e-Shaba, Jind-ul-ullah) who operate all over Pakistan.
·The applicant was involved in Ashura festivals in the past in Pakistan. On 28 December 2009 he witnessed a targeted bomb blast at this event. Many people were killed in this incident.
·Within two months there was another blast on a bus on route to a procession. The applicant was safe as he was in front on the bus. He assisted shifting injured people.
·The applicant received a student visa and came to Australia to study.
·In January and April 2012 two of his cousins were killed in targeted killings.
·In August 2012, within 2 days of his return visit to Pakistan, he was attacked by unknown persons. Luckily he was saved however his friend got shot 3 times in his leg and stomach while having a coffee at a café.
·On 19 October 2013 his uncle was killed while sitting at a café having tea.
·On 22 November 2013 there was a twin bomb blast [close to] his home in which one of his cousins was killed while he was on holidays abroad.
·On 16 March 2014, a friend of his was shot when returning from work. He was the founder and member of a welfare organisation in his area. They worked together and served poor people and victimized families
·On 10 September 2014, his cousin, [was] killed by Sipha-e-Shaba while sitting in a [shop].
·On 15 October 2014, another cousin was killed by Sipha-e-Shaba in Hyderabad, a city which the applicant relocated to in the past.
·His cousin from his mother’s side was killed by Lashkar-e- jhangvi on 20 December 2014. He was a business person who also worked for a government department
·On 26 May 2015, while he was shopping for his wedding, he was dragged down a street corner and was threatened by unidentified masked men. They stated that if he did not disassociate himself with community welfare groups he was involved in, there would be serious consequences.
·He cannot return home as it is not safe for him anymore. His parents and brother were threatened by militia groups.
Supporting material provided to the delegate included media reporting and other material on incidents of sectarian violence in Karachi, documents relating to Shia victims of such violence, social media material, a letter from Tanzeem-e-Karwan-e-Najaf and medical documents and material related to the third named applicant’s condition.
Tribunal review
In pre-hearing submissions the applicants’ representative restates the first named applicant’s claimed instances of past harm, responds to the conclusions of the delegate, and relevantly contends that:
The entire family, including [his] wife [name], and their daughter [name], are at risk if they relocate to Pakistan. The country is experiencing a surge in violence against the Shia community, including women, and the situation is expected to deteriorate further. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to the safety and well-being of women, making returning to Pakistan unfeasible.
Provided with those submissions was material including media reporting, social media material and YouTube evidence on the situation for Shia’s in Pakistan; documents relating to particular bombings; information relating to Shia victims of sectarian violence; further medical information relating to the third named applicant; and identity documents relating to all applicants. Some of this material was already provided to the delegate.
The applicants were invited to a hearing to discuss their protection claims on 31 July 2024. The first and second named applicants presented arguments and evidence in support of their protection visa applications at hearing. Their oral evidence is considered below. The third named applicant, who is the infant daughter of the first and second named applicants, did not attend and relies on the evidence of her parents.
During the hearing extensive material relating to previous visa applications and determinations were submitted, along with medical documents relating to the third named applicant, financial records of the first named applicant, and previously submitted material relating to the security situation in Pakistan.
After the hearing, the applicants provided further submissions via their representative responding to concerns raised during the hearing. Accompany these submissions were letters and photos relating to the applicant’s involvement with certain welfare organisations, police First Incident Reports, documents relating to the deaths of the first named applicant’s cousins, material concerning a July 2024 attack in Parachinar, a letter from the Shia Muslim Council of Australia about the risk to Shias in Parachinar, and a letter from [name] to the Indian External Affairs Minister on the situation for Shias in Parachinar. Also submitted was a statutory declaration dated 23 August 2024 which responds to a s.424A letter from the Tribunal dated 7 August 2024.
Factual findings
Identity, background, receiving country
The applicants’ have provided copies of the biodata pages of their Pakistani passports and national identity cards issued by the Pakistan authorities, along with identity documents they have obtained in Australia. Also before me is a marriage certificate from the Government of Sindh, Pakistan indicating that the first and second applicant were legally married [in] October 2014.
The applicants also submitted a New South Wales birth certificate for the third named applicant, which confirms she is the Australian born daughter of the first and second applicants.
The first and second applicants provided consistent details in their oral evidence as to their identities which accord with the information in the visa applications and identity documents. There is no conflicting information before me with undermines their claims as to their identities. I am satisfied that the applicants’ identities are as claimed, and that they are nationals of Pakistan. Pakistan is the receiving country for the purpose of this assessment.
Religion
The first and second applicant identified themselves as being adherent to Shia Islam and expressed that their daughter also follows this faith.
The first applicant responded spontaneously and in detail when questioned about Shia religious customs and practises. He spoke of the significance of Imam Ali and described the commemorations of Ashura and Muharram processions. He also talked with me about undertaking religious pilgrimages to locations in Syria and Iran which hold significance for Shias. He expressed that holding the name [name] identifies him both as a Shia and as a descendant of prophet Muhammad.
The second applicant explained to me how she would pray in imam bargahs, and described her involvement with mourning procession. She also commented on her husband’s involvement within the Shia community.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reports that Pakistan is home to the second largest Shia population in the world. An estimated 20–40 million Shias live throughout the country, comprising 10–20 per cent of the overall population, with significant Shia communities in Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad.[1]
[1] Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022.
I found the applicants’ information in respect of their religious beliefs and adherence to be persuasive. Both seemed to be at ease discussing their religion and the religious activities they engage in. Both provided detailed answers which I consider were reflective of them recounting lived experiences. I accept that the applicants are all Shia Muslims as claimed.
Events in Karachi
Independent reporting confirms that Shia Muslims in Karachi have endured periods of significant violence targeted at them because of their faith. Shias have historically been targeted by sectarian terrorist groups who have attacked Shia individuals, places of worship, shrines and religious schools, as well as Shia travelling to Iran or Iraq for religious pilgrimage. The frequency of these attacks has steadily declined since 2013.[2] The improvement in the security situation has been attributed to the Pakistan federal government’s establishment and deployment of counter terrorism operations.
[2] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022; South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), ‘Civilian Data: Attacks on Shia, Sindh’, >
Independent reporting confirms that an Ashura procession was bombed in Karachi in 2009.[3] Reporting also notes that in February 2010 a bus carrying Shias was targeted in a bombing, following shortly after by a second bombing at Jinnah Hospital where victims of the first attack were being treated.[4] I am prepared to accept that the first named applicant witnessed these incidents as he claims.
[3] The Guardian, ‘Suicide bomber kills 30 on Shia procession in Karachi’, 29 December 2009.
[4] Al Jazeera, ‘Karachi bomb blasts leave many dead’, 6 February 2010; The Guardian ‘Pakistan rocked by twin explosions in Karachi’ 6 February 2010.
Between 2012 and 2014 the applicant claims that a number of his acquaintances and relatives, who are also Shia, were killed in sectarian violence in Karachi. Reporting from the South Asia Terrorism Portal indicates that this was a period of heightened violence against Shias, with both the number of incidents targeting Shias, and the number of Shia victims killed, up considerably when compared to preceding years.[5] Given this, I accept that the applicant knew some Shia victims of sectarian violence in Karachi from this period.
[5] SATP, ‘Civilian Data: Attacks on Shia, Sindh’,
The first named applicant claims that after moving to Australia in 2010, he made return trips to Karachi in 2012 and 2015, and that he narrowly avoided harm and possible death on both occasions. I have concerns in respect of his evidence on these matters which cause me to doubt the veracity of these claims.
The first named applicant told me that he went back to Karachi in 2012 for his brother’s wedding. During this return visit he attended a tea shop with his friends in August 2012, when people on motorcycles road past and shot at them, striking his friend three times. This incident was not specifically mentioned in the visa application. Moreover, given the applicant indicated he moved to Australia in April 2010 to ‘save his life’, that he made a return trip back to Karachi two years later in my view casts doubt over the extent to which he feared for his safety in that city a that time.
The second named applicant told me that she and her husband had been communicating by phone for some time, and that they became engaged in September 2012. She confirmed to me that she met her now husband in person in September 2012, during his return visit from Australia. This would have been a few weeks after the incident at the tea shop. The second named applicant told me that she as not aware of the first named applicant being targeted in an attack shortly prior to their engagement.

After the Tribunal hearing I wrote to the first named applicant, inviting him to comment on his wife’s evidence in respect of the 2012 incident. He provided a statutory declaration dated 23 August 2024 in which he asserts he did not tell his wife about the 2012 attack because he did not want to burden her or cause her undue stress during their ceremonies. However, he also states that he made her aware of the other incidents in which he was targeted including during his return visit for their wedding in 2015.
On 28 August 2024 he submitted a document via his lawyer which is described as an FIR (First Information Report). However, the attached document is a letter from the applicant seemingly on the letter head of a law firm, addressed to a police station dated 9 August 2012 and entitled ‘Request for Police Protection’. The applicant has had the benefit of legal representation since preparing his visa application. No explanation was provided as to why this document, purportedly created in August 2012, was only being provided for the first time in August 2024. As the delegate noted, document fraud in Pakistan is common and widespread. It is reported that documents such as police reports, are relatively simple to counterfeit and there is existence of police accepting bribes to verify fraudulent documents, including First Information Reports.[6]
[6] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, February 2019.
The first named applicant also claims he was threatened in May 2015 on a second return visit to Karachi, while shopping for his wedding. This incident is also not specifically raised in the visa application. In his written evidence before the delegate interview he indicated that on 26 May 2015 unidentified masked men threatened him and told him to stop doing community work or there would be serious consequences. In the statement provided before the Tribunal hearing, he indicated that the men dragged him into a corner of the street, warned him with a weapon to abandon his community welfare work. A First Information Report dated 29 May 2015 states that on this occasion three unidentified men approached the applicant and asked his identity, but it does not record the applicant being threatened or warned.
The first named applicant’s oral evidence about this incident was notably different. He told me that the two men (not three) warned him “leave the country or you will face serious harm”. He did not mention being warned to abandon his community work. He also told me that on the day of his wedding he saw the same two men again and he ran inside his home.
I take into account the delay in submitting the protection visa application following these claimed incidents. The first named applicant indicated he came to Australia in 2010 to save his life, however he did not apply for a protection visa until 2018. When I asked him about this delay, he replied that because he had student visas and tried to get a permanent skilled visa he did not apply. I note that the first named applicant held a number of temporary student and work visas, including after the claimed 2012 and 2015 incidents. Those visas were granted for specific periods. I consider it doubtful that if he believed he faced danger in Pakistan when he left in 2010, and if the incidents in 2012 and 2015 occurred as claimed, that he would delay applying for a permanent protection visa until 2018.
The applicants’ evidence in respect of the incidents of claimed past harm the first named applicant endured during his two return visits to Karachi is not persuasive. The first named applicant offered an imprecise and shifting account of the 2015 incident, and provided very different details about the threat he claimed he received. That the second named applicant was not aware of the 2012 incident, in my view, undermines the claim. As does the omission of any detail in respect of these two incidents in the 2018 visa application, which the applicants prepared with the benefit of a legal representative. I do not accept that the first named applicant was threatened or specifically targeted in either 2012 or 2015.
It is also claimed that the first named applicant’s cousin was killed in March 2022 near to the applicant’s home, and that on 3 July 2024, another cousin, “died due to a firearm injury to his chest and head”. It is suggested that these incidents are indicative of the risks the applicants face as Shias in Karachi. A death certificate, photographs of bodies and a YouTube link were provided in support of these contentions. I place little weight on the death certificate, noting the prevalence of document fraud in Pakistan.[7] The remaining material does not establish that the victims are connected to the first named applicant, or the circumstances or motivation for their deaths. Considering the first named applicant has demonstrated a preparedness to provide materially different information in respect of the 2015 incident, I approach his contentions in respect of these deaths with caution. On the material presented I am not satisfied that the first named applicant’s cousins were killed in religiously motivated targeted killings in 2022 and 2024 as claimed.
Shia community worker / leader
[7] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, February 2019.
The first named applicant’s evidence in respect of his claimed religious and community work has shifted over time and is lacking in detail. I have serious doubts as to the veracity of these claims.
The 2018 visa application form, which was prepared with a legal representative, specifically asks for details of any “unpaid employment / volunteer work”. No such work was mentioned by the first named applicant. On the same form, when asked to provide details about his protection claims, the first named applicant makes no mention at all of any community or religious work. This is particularly notable as when I asked the first named applicant why he applied for a protection visa, he told me that he cannot go back to Pakistan due to serious threats because since a long time ago he always worked with different welfare organisations.
In the 2019 statement submitted prior to the delegate’s interview, he asserts that his family are involved in voluntary work like helping community families and friends. He does not mention any specific involvement with any particular organisation, nor does he detail what kind of voluntary work he does or has done personally.
The 31 July 2024 submission to the Tribunal asserts the first named applicant “has affiliation with [Organisation 1], Tanzeem-e-Najak and Al Qaim Trust”, and that he “He offers his volunteer services with various capabilities to these welfare organisations. He is neither a high profile worker nor a low level worker but would be considered a middle level community worker based on the support he provides”. The submission also states that he has “consistently transferring money to his father and trust bank account, which is used to provide educational facilities and financial support to Shia families in need. The funds are also utilized for distribution drives, providing health care and Dialysis facilities and even to search for missing Shia workers. His efforts to protect the Shia population from extremist violence and his voluntary donations for this purpose have infuriated these radical organizations, who now view him as a serious foe”.
The 31 July 2024 submission also suggests that the first named applicant, along with a cousin, “started welfare services in 2007, including providing free education to students”. Information in the protection visa application states that the first named applicant finished high school in December 2007.
The first named applicant submitted various letters from different welfare organisations, which provided the following details.
·10 July 2018 letter from [name] states the first named applicant actively participates in religious gatherings, serves the Shia Community in general and specifically victimised families by the terrorists.
·12 July 2018 letter from Tanzeem-e-Karwan-e-Najaf confirms the first named applicant has been a reciter and an active member of Tanzeem-e-Karwan-e-Najaf.
·5 August 2018 letter from [name] states the first named applicant is a “well known religious worker”.
·8 August 2018 letter from [name] states the first named applicant is a religious worker and give supports to an orphanage.
·10 August 2018 letter [name] states the first named applicant provide significant support for orphanages where he play a key role in the welfare of orphaned children.
·16 July 2024 letter from [name] confirms the first named applicant is a significant contributor to [an] orphanage and plays a crucial role in assisting families affected by extremist violence and martyrs families.
·22 July 2024 letter from [a] Manager HR of [Organisation 1] stating the first named applicant has been associated with [Organisation 1] since March 2015 “for his voluntary services” “in various initiatives for the betterment of mankind”.
·25 July 2024 from [a named person] discussing the first named applicant’s unwavering support for [children].
Also provided was a file of photographs entitled “welfare activities and events” which seem to show young men eating meals and taking part in lessons.
I asked the applicant about his voluntary work during the hearing. He told me that he provides food to people, gives free tuition and provide clothes and Eid, with different organisations.
When I asked the applicant why he applied for a protection visa, he said he cannot go back to Pakistan due to serious threats because since a long time ago he always worked with different welfare organisations. Since he was in grade nine he claims he gave free tuition to other students as part of his work with various welfare organisations. He gave groceries, medicine and free tuition to the children of martyrs. That is why he is the targeted by Sunni extremists. The applicant’s brothers and fathers were involved in this work also but “not like him”.
I asked which organisations he was involved with specifically while in Pakistan. He replied “[Organisation 1]), we started this one 2012 it was very small but now it is very big all over Pakistan”. When I noted to the first named applicant that he moved to Australia in 2010, he shifted his position, stating “before we worked locally in our area is was called [a] committee before”. The [Organisation 1] website states that the organisation was founded in 2009, and does not mention any predecessor committee nor does it suggest the applicant was involved in its founding.[8] Furthermore, the [Organisation 1] letter submitted by the first named applicant states that he has only been affiliated with that organisation since 2015, noting 2012 as he claims.
[8] [deleted]
I again asked what organisations he was active in while living in Karachi. The first named applicant then said he was part of [a] foundation, which provides food, school fees and medicine; and also [Organisation 2] which specifically supports education.
I am not satisfied that prior to 2010 the applicant engaged in any religious or community work in Pakistan which caused him to be of any interest to any groups. No such voluntary work was mentioned in the visa application. This is despite him telling me during the hearing that he faces serious threats in Pakistan because “since a long time ago he always worked with different welfare organisations”. In addition, I consider his delay of around eight years in applying for a protection visa after coming to Australia is not supportive of him having a profile of interest with Sunni extremists due to his community work of “a long time”. If he faced such a risk when he came to Australia I consider he would have applied for a protection visa sooner. Furthermore, he has provided vague, shifting and inconsistent details about which organisations he was active in and offered very little insight into the nature of the work he did for them, such that I am not satisfied he is recounting lived experiences.
The first named applicant’s evidence in respect of his profile as a religious community worker is not persuasive. Despite providing considerable documentary evidence, and exploring these claims during the hearing, he has offered very little details into what duties he has actually performed, for which organisation, at which time, and how and when this bought him to the adverse interest of Sunni extremists. Noting that the first named applicant has lived in Australia since 2010, the repetition in his oral evidence and in the numerous letters that he “supports” and “volunteers” for various Karachi based organisations gave minimal insight into how he carries on his community work while living abroad. I also note that the visa application form alludes to the first named applicant’s family having recently received threat letters from banned organisations in 2018, though no such letters have been submitted. Given the paucity of detail and supporting information, I do not accept that since living in Australia he has done anything to support any of these organisations other than providing some financial support. I am not satisfied that doing so would have imparted upon him a profile of interest at all with any group, as there is no indication that such donations are made public or that he has ever been threatened in connection with such a donation.
Activities in Australia
The first and second named applicants told me that they practise their faith in Australia, and part of the Shia community. As I have accepted that the applicants are sincerely adherent to Shia Islam, I accept that they have been involved in the faith community while in Australia. As this conduct was engaged in in furtherance of their sincerely held religious views, it was not engaged in solely to enhance their claims to be refugees, and as such s.5J(6) is not engaged.
Third named applicant’s medical condition
The third named applicant’s medical condition was explored with her parents during the hearing. They indicated that she is happy and healthy and that her condition is being managed well. Based on the extensive medical information before me, I accept that the third named applicant has been diagnosed with [Medical Condition 1] .
I explained that both the refugee and complementary protection criteria concern intentional harm inflicted against someone by another person, and that inferring and unavailable medical care may not fall within the scope of these criteria. I noted that if there were any reason to believe that the third named applicant may be denied medical treatment on a discriminatory basis that may be relevant and that the applicants may wish to discuss this with their representative. I expressed during the hearing that on the available information it does not appear that the third named applicant’s medical condition would fall within either criteria, however I am happy to receive submissions about this following the hearing. Both the applicants and representatives confirmed that they understood this. The submissions after the hearing did not comment on the third named applicant’s medical condition or whether this attracts any relevant risk or chance of harm.
Consideration
The applicants confirmed to me that the only reasons they fear returning to Pakistan is due to being Shia Muslims and owing to the first named applicant’s religious work
As set out above, I have accepted that the applicants are Shias. I am satisfied that were they to return to Pakistan in the foreseeable future they would continue to practise their faith. I have accepted that the applicants were acquainted with Shia victims of sectarian violence in Karachi, the that first named applicant witnessed some attacks before moving to Australia, that the first named applicant provides some financial support to Shia welfare organisations.
For the reasons provided I have not accepted that the first named applicant was threatened in 2012 or 2015. Nor do I accept that he has ever taken part in any religious or community welfare work imparting on him a profile of interest with any Sunni groups. Other than providing donations while in Australia, I have not accepted that the first named applicant has taken part in any religious work and I do not accept he of any interest to any group on this basis.
Given the applicants originate from Karachi and their families continue to reside there, I have considered the risk they may face in the foreseeable future in Karachi.
I have accepted above that around the time they applicants moved to Australia, in 2010 and 2015 respectively, Karachi was subject to considerable sectarian violence in which a number of Shias were targeted. In June 2014, operation Zarb-e-Azb, targeting terrorist groups, was launched. This was followed by a National Action Plan (NAP) in December 2014, which together with military operations formed a civil-military effort to combat terrorism. In 2017, further military operations, the Radd-ul- Fasaad (succeeding operation Zarb-e-Azb) and Operation Khyber-IV, were launched. It is reported that the NAP and military operations led to significant reductions in the number of criminal and sectarian violence and terrorism-related attacks. Due to these military operations, the situation in the country has been described as more stable and apprehension of some major commanders from different militant groups is noted to have led to loss of operational strength of militant groups in the country.[9]
[9] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, February 2019; DFAT, ‘Thematic Report – Shias in Pakistan’, January 2016; European Asylum Support Office (EASO), ‘Country of Origin Information Report – Pakistan Security Situation’, October 2019; Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), ‘Pakistan Security Report: 2018’, January 2019.
Recent reporting indicates that Shia comprise 10-15% of Pakistan’s population of 242 million people.[10] Even at the lower end of that range, this would mean that some 24 million Shia Muslims reside in Pakistan. Karachi is estimated to be home to around 20.3 million people as per Census 2023,[11] and the city is home to a significant Shia community.[12] The UK Home Office assessed in 2021 that while there have been sporadic targeted attacks against Shia Muslims, relative to the size of the Shia population in Pakistan, they are, in general, unlikely to be subject to treatment or discrimination by non-state actors that is sufficiently serious by its nature or repetition to amount to persecution.^[13]
[10] Minority Rights Group, ‘Shi'a and Hazaras in Pakistan’, June 2018.
[11] Commissioner Karachi Division, Sindh, commissionerkarachi.gos.pk.
[12] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022.
[13] United Kingdom Home Office, ‘Country Policy and Information Note - Pakistan: Shia Muslims’, 13 July 2021.
In 2022 DFAT reported that after improvements over recent years, the security situation in Pakistan has deteriorated since mid-2021 for several reasons.[14] Following a six-year downward trend, terrorist incidents increased slightly in 2021, but were still well down compared to 2013-2017. While the large-scale security operations carried out in 2014-17 have mostly wound down, Pakistan Armed Forces continue to conduct operations against terrorist groups who attack its interests and in response to specific threats and incidents.[15]
[14] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022.
[15] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022.
However, for attacks specifically targeting Shia, other than Hazaras, the recent number overall is low and has “steadily declined” since 2013.[16] In the entire country, there are reports of only five Shia deaths and 14 injured in 2020, compared with 32 deaths in 2019 and 471 deaths in 2013.[17] DFAT attributes this reduction to an overall improvement in the security situation in Pakistan, as well as increased security provided by the Pakistani police for Shia places of worship and processions.[18] Overall, the 2022 DFAT report assessed that Shias in Pakistan face a moderate risk of sectarian violence, although the situation has improved considerably in recent years.
[16] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022.
[17] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022.
[18] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’, January 2022.

In April 2024 the Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (ACCORD) reported that while the overall security situation in Pakistan has deteriorated due to the return of the Afghan Taliban in 2021 and the negative impact of the political unrest following the former Prime Minister Imran Khan, most security related incidents targeted non-civilians, and that notably security and military personal were prime targets.[19] The report also notes that most attacks in general, and the majority of violence against civilians, occurred in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.[20]
[19] Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (ACCORD, ‘Pakistan: COI Compilation’, April 2024.
[20] ACCORD, ‘Pakistan: COI Compilation’, April 2024.
Other independent sources similarly indicate that in recent years the security situation for Shias in Pakistan generally, and in Karachi particularly, has remained comparably favourable with very few reports of incidents and deaths compared to earlier periods. The Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies ('PICCS') reported that during 2023, throughout the whole of Pakistan, there were only 3 security incidents involving non-Hazara Shia.[21]
[21] Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS), ‘2023 ends with 70% increase in Militant Attacks, 81% Rise in deaths’, 1 January 2024.
A May 2024 report from the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) reported that nationally there were five terrorist attacks targeted members of Shia community, compared to nine attacks against Sunni religious leaders and community.[22] As in previous years, security and law enforcement personnel were the prime target of terrorist attacks in 2023. As many as 205 attacks in 2023, or about 67 percent of the total recorded attacks in the year, targeted personnel, vehicles, convoys, and posts or facilities of security and law enforcement agencies.[23]
[22] PIPS, ‘Pakistan's Evolving Militant Landscape: State Responses and Policy Options’, May 2024.
[23] PIPS, ‘Pakistan's Evolving Militant Landscape: State Responses and Policy Options’, May 2024.
In terms of sectarian violence, PIPS noted that during 2023 a total of 16 incidents of such violence nationally, with seven such incident occurring in Karachi in Sindh (7 incidents). Six of the seven incidents in Karachi were carried out by armed Shia groups targeting the Sunni community.[24]
[24] PIPS, ‘Pakistan's Evolving Militant Landscape: State Responses and Policy Options’, May 2024.
The South Asian Terrorism Portal reported only one security incident targeting Shia civilians in Sindh Province (the applicant’s province) in 2017, 2019, and 2024, with no reported incidents in 2022-2023.[25]
[25] SATP, ‘Civilian Data: Attacks on Shia, Sindh’, >
I am conscious that various sources categorises particular incidents and attacks differently. I also keep in mind that determining the intended target of an attack and the motivation or a perpetrator may not always be straight forward, and that not all incidents are necessarily reported and documented. However, I am satisfied that a broad survey of the various recent sources I have cited above, from independent and reputable sources, support a conclusion that the situation for Shias in Karachi is currently stable and has remained so for a number of years now.
I raised the above information with the applicants during the hearing and invited them to comment on it. I also afforded them to the chance to respond to this material in writing after the hearing. The first named applicant told me that Operation Zarb-Arb was useless and did nothing. Noting the material above, which documents a significant decline in Shia targeted violence in Karachi since the operations started in 2014, I do not consider this contention is supported. The first named applicant insisted that Shias in Karachi remain at risk from Sunni extremists. When I noted that both his family and the second named applicant’s family continue to reside in Karachi despite this claimed risk, he suggested that all of Pakistan was dangerous for Shias.
I put to the applicants that the most recent reporting indicates that in the past years, Shias targeting Sunnis were the main perpetrators of sectarian violence in Karachi. The first named applicant responded that Shias do not do such bad things and do not kill. I noted that in May 2024, PIPS reported that Sipah-e-Mohammad Pakistan, a violent Shia group, along with a newly emerged Shia group called Zainabiyun Brigade, have been found involved in the targeted killings of members and supporters of Sunni groups predominantly in Karachi, and that there was six reported incidents of such violence last year.^[26]
[26] PIPS, ‘Pakistan's Evolving Militant Landscape: State Responses and Policy Options’, May 2024.
In written submission to the Tribunal after hearing, the applicant’s representative contends the situation for Shia in Karachi remains dire. He cites a document from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada published on 4 December 2020, Which quotes a Professor of Islamic studies who claims Karachi is one of the cities with the "worst persecution" of Shia Muslims and that Karachi has "been worse" in the past two to three years.^[27] A Jinnah Institute representative is also quoted in that document, describing Karachi is among the "worst" cities for Shias because of the presence of militant groups.^[28] The submissions also refer to a 2020 United States Department of State report which mentions the killing of a Shia police officer in Karachi.[29]
[27] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Pakistan: Differences between Shia [Shi'a, Shi'i] and Sunni Muslims; procedure to convert to Shi'ism; the situation and treatment of Shia Muslims by society and authorities, particularly in major cities (Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, Hyderabad); state response (2018–November 2020)’ 4 December 2020.
[28] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Pakistan: Differences between Shia [Shi'a, Shi'i] and Sunni Muslims; procedure to convert to Shi'ism; the situation and treatment of Shia Muslims by society and authorities, particularly in major cities (Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, Hyderabad); state response (2018–November 2020)’ 4 December 2020.
[29] United States Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights – Pakistan 2020, 30 March 2021.
Notably, this material is now all quite dated. I expressly noted during the hearing that current, or at least more recent, material on the situation in Karachi would be of more assistance in resolving the matters in issue in this review. I consider the various sources I have referred to above, which date from 2024, 2023 and 2022, are of greater value in determining the situation the applicant may face in Karachi in the foreseeable future.
The representative also quotes the 2023 Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) annual report on Pakistan, arguing that “Pakistan has witnessed 1533 violence- linked fatalities and 1462 injuries from as many as 789 incident of terror attacks and counter- terror operations. These overall fatalities recorded in 2023 including those of outlaws- mark a record 6 year high, exceeding the 2018 level and highest since 2017.”^[30] This contention does not comment on the situation for Shias either nationally or in Karachi specifically. Notably, what is not mentioned in the submissions, is that the 2023 CRSS report documents only three incidents of sectarian violence in Pakistan in 2023 targeting Shias who are not Hazaras.[31] While the report comments on various incidents of violence in Sindh and Karachi during the reporting period, there is no mention of any Shias being targeted. The CRSS report notes, as do other sources I have referred to, that 2023 saw on uptick in violence across Pakistan for various reasons. However it does not suggest that Shias were targeted because of their religion in Karachi during the reporting period, and does not in my view materially alter the assessment of the situation for Shias in that city supported by the various other reports I have referred to.
[30] Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), ‘Annual Security Report 2023 Pakistan’,
[31] CRSS, ‘Annual Security Report 2023 Pakistan’.
Also referred to in the submission and accompanying material is an attack against Shias in Parachinar on 27 July 2024. The various extracts provided from the representative suggest that between 6, 30, 44 and over 60 people were killed in this attack. I accept that this attack occurred. Though I note that Parachinar is a long way away from Karachi, and the security situation in both cities is quite different with. I consider this incident does not significantly alter the prevailing view in the material referred to above that in Karachi presently the Shia community are not, and have not recently been, subject to many instances of violence.
Conclusions
When asked about her family now in Karachi (who are also Shia), the second named applicant told me that her parents are doing well and that her family do not have any safety concerns at the moment in Karachi. The improved situation for Shias documented in the above reports is reflected in recent media reporting on the Shia community in Pakistan. Notably, its is reported that government security procedures have increased for Ashura commemorations over recent years, resulting in relatively peaceful processions.[32] Ashura commemorations in 2023,[33] and 2022 took place peacefully across Pakistan.[34] I have found that the applicants are sincerely adherent to Shia Islam and I accept that they will continue to practise their faith and be involved in the Shia community in the foreseeable future, were they to return to Karachi. Noting this reporting that in recent years Shia Ashura processions proceeded peacefully without incident, I do not consider that practising their faith in the foreseeable future in Karachi would attract more than a remote chance of harm,
[32] Imtiaz Ali, Dawn (Pakistan), 'Security plan for Karachi's Ashura processions finalised', 6 August 2022.
[33] Dawn (Pakistan), 'Ashura observed peacefully', 31 July 2023.
[34] Imtiaz Ali, Dawn (Pakistan), ‘Security plan for Karachi's Ashura processions finalised', 6 August 2022.
I have accepted that the first named applicant witnessed attacks against Shias in Karachi prior to moving to Australia in 2010, and that the first and second named applicants know people who have been victims of sectarian violence in Pakistan. However I do not consider that this has imparted an profile of interest upon them.
On the totality of the material before me, and noting the country information set out above, I do not consider that the applicant’s face more than a remote chance of harm in Karachi were they to return there and practise their faith. I am not satisfied the applicants face a real chance of serious harm in the foreseeable future in Karachi because they are Shia Muslims. I am also not satisfied the applicants face a real chance of any harm in connection with the first named applicant’s financial support for Shia welfare organisations or the third named applicant’s medical condition, in the foreseeable future in Karachi, for the reasons set out above.
On the evidence before me I am not satisfied the applicants face a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future for any reason were they to return to Pakistan. The applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any s.5J(1)(a) reason. The applicants are not refugees per s.5H.
A ‘real risk’ and ‘real chance’ involve the same standard.[35] For the reasons set out above the applicants also do not face a real risk of significant harm were they to return to Pakistan for any reason, including because they are Shias, due to the first named applicant making donations to Shia welfare organisations, or for any reason related to third named applicant’s medical condition. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm.
[35] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Michael Simmons
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 4477

9 October 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Standing