1915900 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by citizens of Pakistan. The applicants had previously applied for protection in 2013, which was refused by the department and affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) in 2015. Following an unsuccessful appeal at the circuit court, the applicant withdrew an appeal to the Full Federal Court in July 2017, having departed Australia on two occasions in 2016 and returned. A second protection visa application was lodged in August 2017, which is the subject of this review. The delegate refused this second application, finding that Australia did not owe protection obligations and that the applicant had re-availed himself of the protection of Pakistan by travelling internationally on his Pakistani passport.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations, considering both the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion. A subsidiary issue was whether the applicant had re-availed himself of the protection of Pakistan by travelling to a third country on his national passport, which could potentially lead to the cessation of refugee status under Article 1C(1) of the Refugee Convention. The Tribunal was required to consider extensive documentation, supporting statements, and submissions, alongside country information and departmental guidelines, in making its determination.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that Australia did not owe protection obligations to the applicant. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of being a Shi’a Muslim cleric, poet, and event organiser who feared harm from Sunni extremists, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support these claims. It noted that the applicant's online profile was very small and that many individuals with higher profiles continued to reside in Pakistan. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's serious physical health condition and his wife's injury, as well as the circumstances of their children, but found these factors did not establish a real risk of significant harm. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's travel to a third country on his Pakistani passport did not constitute re-availment of Pakistan's protection, as there was no evidence of contact with Pakistani authorities. The Tribunal concluded that any attacks the applicant may have faced were not targeted but random, and that the applicant had remote prospects of finding accommodation and employment in Australia. The matter was referred for ministerial intervention.