1913348 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Pakistani national. The applicant, who was born Sunni Muslim, converted to Shia Islam while in Australia. He claimed that upon returning to Pakistan for a business venture, he was threatened by a former friend who discovered his conversion and subsequently attacked by unknown armed men. He also alleged that news of his conversion had spread, leading to threats from Sunni extremists and fears of persecution and torture if he were to return to Pakistan. The applicant sought to establish Australia's protection obligations under both the refugee and complementary protection criteria.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations under the 'refugee' criterion or the complementary protection criterion. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding his conversion, the threats and attacks he allegedly faced in Pakistan, and the risk of significant harm upon return. The court also had to consider the reasonableness of relocation within Pakistan as a potential mitigation against any identified risks.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information. While acknowledging the applicant's conversion and the reported incidents, the court found that the risk of persecution did not extend to all areas of Pakistan and that relocation to another area within the country would be a reasonable course of action to mitigate any identified risks. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The decision under review was affirmed.