1917211 (Refugee)

1917211 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2990 (30 June 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBERS: 1917211
1715399

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Pakistan
MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt
DATE:30 June 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 30 June 2021 at 3:04 PM
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion – Shia Muslim – fearing harm from Sunni extremist individuals and groups – first applicant’s role in preventing bombing of mosque – attack, injury and threats to second applicant – young children born in Australia – credibility – delay in departing after visa granted, voluntary return to home country with no harm, and delay in applying for protection visa – no harm to family members or associates – inconsistent and unpersuasive evidence – country information – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 7 July 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The first four named applicants who are citizens of Pakistan, applied for the visas on 9 April 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that she found their claims to lack credibility.
The fifth applicant is also citizen of Pakistan. She is the [age] year old daughter of the first named applicants. An application was lodged on her behalf on 24 September 2018. It was refused by a delegate on 28 June 2019.
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 (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.
BACKGROUND
[The first applicant] (applicant A) is a [age] years old woman of Shia Muslim faith from Karachi in Pakistan. Her father is deceased. Her mother and two married sisters remain in Karachi in Pakistan. She completed a secondary certificate at [school] in Karachi in [year]. She worked as a [Occupation 1 at home] from April 2005 until April 2006. She did not work outside the home after that. Prior to coming to Australia, she travelled to briefly to Iran to visit a Shia shrine.
[The second applicant] (applicant B) is applicant A’s husband. He is [age] years old. He completed higher secondary school in [year] and worked in administration in [an] industry from then until his departure for Australia. Applicant B visited Syria for religious purposes for nine days in February 2009.
The applicants married in 2005. They are cousins and share a grandmother. Their first child was born in [year]. They obtained student visa on 26 March 2010 and arrived in Australia [in] May 2010. They had a second child in Australia in [year]. They returned to Pakistan from [February] 2015 until [March] 2015 and applied for protection on 9 April 2015. Their third child was born in Australia on [date].
THE APPLICANT’S MENTAL HEALTH
Applicant A has provided psychologist’s reports dated 26 June 2017, 4 December 2018 and 26 January 2021 which states that the applicant tis suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder related to problems she faced in Pakistan and her conviction that she would be in danger if she returned.
I have taken the psychologist’s diagnosis of the applicant A’s mental health issues into account when considering her evidence. However, neither the reports nor her behaviour during the hearing suggest that she had difficulty providing her evidence. She reported appropriately and coherently to the questions she was asked. I note that she had the assistance of a competent representative who did not raise any issues regarding her ability to provide evidence during the hearing. I am satisfied that applicant A was able to engage meaningfully and give her oral evidence in support of her claims during her hearings.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Applicants A and B (the applicants) claim that they face serious or significant harm if they return to Pakistan because they are observant Shia Muslims. They claim that they are at particular risk of harm because of applicant A’s involvement in foiling an attempt to bomb a Shia shrine or Imambargah in 2008. They claim that applicant B was attacked in the street shortly after applicant A foiled the bomb attempt and that they received threatening letters when they returned to Pakistan in 2015. They believe that these events were linked to their religion and to applicant A’s involvement in preventing the bombing in 2008. It has also been submitted that applicant B may be at risk of harm because he travelled to Syria in 2009 and may be seen as supporting the Syrian regime.
The applicants also claim to fear that their children will be at risk of harm on return to Pakistan because they have lived most or all of their lives in Australia.
The applicants’ third child (applicant C) applied separately for protection on 24 September 2018. It is claimed on her behalf that she would be at risk of harm if she returned to Pakistan because of her Shia religion and because of her membership of her family as her parents were at risk of harm on return to Pakistan for the reasons set out above.
COUNTRY INFORMATION
The following is intended to provide a context for the applicant’s claims. It is based on information in DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan 14 April 2015, DFAT Country Information Reports Pakistan dated 20 February 2019 and European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Country of Origin Information Reports on the Pakistan Security Situation dated July 2016 and October 2020.
In 2019 DFAT assessed that Shia are able to practice their religion and that Shia who are not Hazara or Turi generally do not face discrimination based on their religious affiliation when seeking employment in the public or private sector, although some Shia report discrimination in relation to access to high level positions. They reported that Shia and Sunni Muslims attend the same schools and Shia do not face significant religious bias in education. Shia are well represented in parliament and regularly contest elections for mainstream political parties.
The report notes that low-level anti-Shi’a discrimination does occur at the community level and can manifest in violence or damage to property. It also notes that Pakistani Shia travelling to Iran and Iraq for religious pilgrimage have been attacked by extremists and that the Pakistani military sometimes provides escort services for Shi’a pilgrims to protect them from these attacks,
According to DFAT sectarian violence occurs throughout Pakistan, but the type and intensity of this violence varies from place to place. Overall DFAT and other sources report that there has been a downward trend in violence since 2013 when the government commenced an operation targeting groups and individual involved. In January 2019 DFAT assessed that with the exception of Hazaras and Ahmadis, Pakistanis are generally able to practise their religion without official interference or discrimination and observed that most Shi’a face a low risk of sectarian violence. They assessed the risk of violence against religious ceremonies, places of worship as moderate. In DFAT’s view high-profile Shi’a face are more likely to be targeted than others, but only face a moderate risk of harm. They observed that the Pakistani authorities are broadly willing to protect Shia communities, but capacity constraints and other problems may limit their abilities to do so. which is large and widely dispersed. They also noted that Shia communities frequently make provisions for their own security, including lines of security to search those attending mosque or Ashura processions.
DFAT’s 2019 report also notes a trend of increased religious conservatism and intolerance towards religious minorities in Pakistan, including reports of use of religious rhetoric, incitement of hatred, and discrimination. Media reports also indicate an increase in hostility towards the Shia community, including one death during an attack in Kohat in Muharram in 2020 and an attack on a procession in Okara.[1] There have also been a number of large scale anti-Shia demonstrations in a number of cities.
[1] See for example, Why are anti-Shia sentiments on the rise in Pakistan?', Express Tribune, 14 September 2020, 20200915102018, 'Pakistan: Hardline Sunni groups on collision course with Shiites', S. Khan, Deutsche Welle, 14 September 2020, 20200915102826 and The Changing Landscape of Anti-Shia Politics in Pakistan', Jaffer A. Mirza, The Diplomat, 28 September 2020, 20200929095157
According to DFAT’s 2019 report extremist groups and individuals used blasphemy laws to target politicians and judges who advocate on behalf of minorities or seek to change the laws. Blasphemy laws have also been used by people involved in personal or property disputes. According to the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 2018 annual report, approximately 100 blasphemy cases were registered in Pakistan between 2011 and early 2018, and an estimated 100 people were serving prison sentences for blasphemy. According to media reports cited above indicate an increase in the use of these laws as police registered more than 40 blasphemy cases in August 2020, most of which were against Shia Muslims and linked to speeches that were part of religious processions.
The applicants are from Karachi in Sindh Province. Karachi is the largest city in Pakistan. Estimates of its population vary between about 20 and 25 million people, of whom 20 to 30 percent or four to eight million are Shia. According to DFAT Karachi has historically experienced high levels of violence due to rival ethnic, sectarian, political, business and criminal interests, but the level violence has reduced due to security activities in the city in recent years. According to the report there were 12 terrorist attacks in Sindh Province in 2018. The report described that overall level of violence in Karachi as moderate and the level of sectarian motivated violence as low. However, it also cautioned that the sustainability of the efforts to reduce violence in the city were not yet clear.
In a report issued in October 2020 the European Asylum Support office noted quoted reports which state that the decline in militant violence in recent years has been noticeable, but also observe that the threat of militancy has not disappeared and that religious intolerance continues to be one of a number issues which are cause for concern. With regard to Karachi the report notes that the city had witnessed a high level of political, ethnic and gang related violence and crime, with the main power struggles being between the political parties representing the main ethnic groups for a number of years. However, the security situation in the city improved gradually during the last years, largely as a result of a security operation launched in 2013.
The following is a summary of reports from organisations which monitor the situation in Pakistan cited in the EASO report dated October 2020.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) collected data on 209 violent events in Sindh province, 87 were described as battles, 5 as explosions/remote violence and 117 as violence against civilians. Sixty two violent events were reported in Karachi. From 1 January to 31 July 2020, they recorded 28 violent events in Sindh; 13 battles, 3 explosions/remote violence and 12 as violence against civilians. Most of the incidents were reported in Karachi (15 violent events).
The Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies Pvt Ltd. (PIPS) recorded ten terrorist attacks Karachi in 2019, a slight increase compared to 2018. This included sectarian and nationalist-inspired attacks. They observed 13 overall incidents in Sindh in the first seven months of 2020 of which 11 were ‘terrorist attacks. Most occurred in ‘terrorist attacks’ Karachi and Larkana.
The Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) counted 34 incidents of violence. Less than half of these incidents (11) were militant attacks.
According to the EASO report a significant number of these incidents involved clashes between security forces and militants or attacks on the latter. In its assessment of the impact of the impact of this violence on civilians the EASO report notes that according to
According to PIPS, in 14 ‘terrorist attacks’ in Sindh in 2019 resulted in a total of 18 deaths and two injuries. CRSS counted 126 casualties (101 fatalities and 25 injured) in the province, which represented a serious decline compared to 2018 the previous year. The majority of the casualties were civilians (67) and security officials (25). The Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) counted in total 37 casualties (35 fatalities, 2 injured) in the first and second quarter analysis report of 2020. In the second quarter of 2020, casualties (28) increased in the province when compared to the first quarter of 2019 (9).
In assessing the applicants’ claims I have also considered the country information which they have provided. Some of it relates to geographical areas which have little or no relevance to the applicants’ claims. Much of it provides useful details and insights into the the kind of violence which is included in reports by DFAT and EASO. Overall, I find the advice from DFAT and EASO more useful as while it is relatively brief it provides a comprehensive overview and focuses on the information required for assessment of protection claims. Relevant documents are assessed in more detail below.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicants state that they come from observant Shia families and claim that Shias in Pakistan are at risk of harm because of their religion. Their mutual grandmother worked for [Employer 1] and was in charge of a Shia shrine or Imambargah located in the same building as [Mosque 1] located in [neighbourhood] from about 1975 until her death in 2017. Applicant B’s father was a volunteer who worked hard for his religion.
According to the applicants’ protection visa application lodged in April 2015, they lived at the same address in Karachi from the time of their marriage until their departure for Australia in May 2010 and applicant B worked as [Occupation 2] for [Employer 2] from May 2005 until May 2010 when he departed for Australia. According to applicant A’s statement of claims provided at the same time she worked as [an Occupation 1] from 2004 until February 2010. According to this statement she and applicant B decided to leave Pakistan due to the worsening situation for Shia Muslims.
Prior to coming to Australia, applicant A travelled to briefly to Iran to visit a Shia shrine. Applicant B visited Syria for religious purposes for nine days in February 2009.
In her submissions to the Department, applicant A said that her brother fled to Africa in 1998 to avoid arrest because of his involvement in Shia activities in 1998. She later said that he died in a traffic accident in Africa many years ago. At the hearing it applicant A and B both stated that they had not experienced any problems because of their religion prior to 2008. They also said that no members of their close families had experienced significant problems at any time because of their religion, their association with the applicants or their association with the Imambargah or [Mosque 1] and that they were not aware of any other attacks or attempted attacks on the mosque or the Imambargah before or after the 2008 incident. Later in the hearing applicant B said that he had heard rumours about a problem of some kind at the mosque some years before the 2008 event and that some members of the mosque had been killed, including his friend [Mr A] who had been shot by gunmen on a motorbike in 2013. He did not know why these people were killed but said that [Mr A] had been involved in many Shia organisations and that people said that the other deaths were linked to the Shia religion of the victims. He also claimed that one of his cousins was killed when a mosque was bombed in 2003.[2]
[2] No record of bombings of Shia mosques in 2003 was located, but there were several attacks in 2004. In later evidence he indicated that the bombing occurred in 2004.
Applicant A said that apart from her grandmother members of her family were not actively involved in Shia events and had not faced problems. She said that her grandmother was not threatened by anyone because she was old.

Applicant A claims that she worked for many years as a volunteer at the Imambargah [Mosque 1] . She claims that during Murharram in early 2008 she was working as a volunteer security guard at the Imambargah with when two women who were fully veiled sought entry. They refused to uncover their faces when asked by the applicant and refused to allow her to inspect [a package] which one of them was carrying. Applicant A refused to allow them to enter so one of them pushed her aside and attempted to enter through another door. Applicant A called out to the people guarding that door who caught the women and prevented them from entering. The police were called and arrested the women. As she was being taken away one of the women threatened to harm the applicant A and her family. The police examined the [package] at the scene and discovered that it contained a bomb or bombs. They questioned applicant A and some of the other people briefly at the Imambargah and then left.
At the hearing applicant A said that the women who attempted to bomb the Imambargah spoke with Muhajir accents, but she had not seen their faces and had no idea who they were or whether they belonged to a particular group.
In her statement provided on 28 April 2021 applicant A said that she had remained at home for three days after the attempted bombing. She continued to be fearful because she was aware that it was not uncommon for criminals to be released due to corruption.
At the hearing applicant A said that she had not personally experienced any problems between the 2008 bombing attempt and her departure for Australia in mid-2010. She said that she had rarely gone out and that she and her husband moved to different areas to keep safe. I asked her if anyone else who had been involved in the capture and arrest of the women who were attempting to bomb the Imambargah had been threatened or harm. She said that nobody else faced problems and added that she believed that she was the only one of interest to the women because she had been the first to raise the alarm. Later in the hearing she said that she had not returned to the Imambargah for about three months after the attempted bombing. Following that she attended briefly from time to time, but she no longer worked as a volunteer.
Applicant A said that she had never spoken to the police or anyone else involved with the case against the women following the incident. She did not know what happened to the women. To the best of her knowledge the police provided no information about the case to anyone associated with the Imambargah or the mosque, but she had a vague recollection that their grandmother had told her that the investigation was continuing.
In her April 2021 statement, applicant A said that security around the Imambargah and mosque had increased significantly following the 2008 incident and female police were sent to help guard the premises. At the hearing she confirmed that the authorities generally provided some protection for Shia mosques in Karachi.
At the hearing applicant B confirmed that he was not present when his wife was threatened by the women who attempted to bomb the Imambargah. He said that he did not know what happened to the women after their arrest. His grandmother had asked the Trust for which she worked to obtain information, but beyond stating that the women were in custody, they refused to provide any information, possibly due to corruption. I acknowledged that corruption was a problem in Pakistan but observed it seemed unlikely that people associated with a large mosque would be unable to obtain any information on the fate of women caught red-handed trying to bomb their premises. Applicant B said that his grandmother had tried to obtain information, but without success.
Applicant B claims that he was attacked in the street a few weeks after the attempted bombing of the Imambargah in 2008. In the statement provided in February 2021 he said that he was walking home from a religious gathering when some men attacked him from behind near his house. They were armed with a knife and gun. They chased him and shouted insults such as “Shia infidel”. He asked why they wanted to hurt him and they said it was because he was an infidel. He initially tried to defend himself but he was cut on [Body Part 1]. As he was running away shots were fired, one of which hit his [Body Part 2]. He continued to run as fast as he could until he was out of their sight. He shouted for help and the man who came called his brother and his friend [Mr A] who came and took him to a clinic where his [Body Part 1] was stitched and his [Body Part 2] was treated. He did not go to the police because he did not trust them.
In support of this claim applicant B provided a medical certificate from a doctor in Victoria dated 18 December 2017 which states that he has scars on his [Body Part 1] and [Body Part 2] which he stated where the result of being attacked in 2008.
At hearing applicant B said that he did not know who the men were, but they that they would have been aware he was a Shia because of his clothing. With regard to his failure to report the attack, he said that he had been fired on by police in 2004 when he was part of a group who rushed to a mosque his cousin was attending was bombed and started looking in the rubble for survivors or bodies.
Applicant B’s brother provided written and oral evidence to the Tribunal in which he stated that while he had not seen the attack on the applicant, he and a friend had taken him to the clinic and he could confirm that he had been attacked and injured on his [Body Part 2] and his [Body Part 1].
The applicants claim to believe the attack on applicant B may have been linked to the attempted bombing of the Imambargah and the threats against applicant A. In the statement provided in April 2021 applicant B said that his family was well-known in the area and they could be easily located. He said that Muhajirs were often connected to the MQM political party and like other extremists Muhajirs were involved in many killings in Karachi.
At the hearing applicant B confirmed that the only link between the attempted bombing and the attack on him was the fact that the women at the Imambargah and the men who attacked him and had Muhajir accents. I advised him that while I was aware of the MQMs involvement in violence in Karachi it was my understanding that it was a secular party and this violence was generally of a political or criminal nature. I also advised him that it was my understanding that Muhajirs were generally involved in extremist religious violence. He said that he did not know whether there was any connection between the two events.
I asked applicant A why she believed the attack on her husband was linked to the earlier incident at the Imambargah. She said that in both cases the perpetrators had a Muhajir accent, but she was not sure whether there was a connection. She also said that she understood the men who attacked her husband would have recognised him as Shia because of his dress and because he was coming from a religious event. I observed that it was not my understanding that Muhajirs were likely to be religious extremists. She said that she did not know.
In his statement dated 27 April 2021 applicant B said that the person who treated his injuries in 2008 said that they were not that serious. The bullet had scraped his [Body Part 2] but had not penetrated. He was advised to use a stick to take pressure off the wound. He said that he and applicant A had moved five times following the attack on him, including travelling to other states. He said that he had not mentioned these moves in his initial application as he did not have a new permanent address. He said that he had also travelled to Syria in 2009. Applicant A stayed at his cousin’s house during that time.
When asked at the hearing about his movements following the 2008 attack applicant B said that he had first moved to a friend’s house, but he could not remember whether his wife also moved to that house. They later moved to his mother -n-law’s house and never returned to the family home they shared with his family prior to 2008. He said that he was off work for a month or two after the attack because he could not walk. He said that he had returned to his old job after that, then said he could not remember what had happened in relation to his employment after he was attacked, then said he got a new job which he worked at until he came to Australia, then said that he had worked at about three different jobs before coming to Australia. Applicant A said that applicant B had not worked for a few months after the 2008 attack because of his injuries. She said that he never returned to his old job and had three or four different jobs between the attack and their departure from Pakistan in May 2010.In his statement dated April 2021 applicant B said that after he was attacked in 2008, he and his wife realised that they could not remain in Pakistan and approached a consultant to find a way to achieve this goal. They did not tell him why they wanted to leave because they did not trust anyone. The consultant suggested that applicant A should obtain a student visa for Australia. They first applied in 2008 but the visa was not granted until 26 March 2010.
At the hearing I asked the applicants why they had remained in Pakistan for two months after they were granted visas for Australia in 2010 if they were fearful of harm in Pakistan. Applicant A said she could not remember, but there could have been urgent issues to be resolved before they left. She added that her course did not commence until June and they arrived a month before it started. Applicant B said that he had stopped working and he and applicant A had avoided problems by leaving Karachi and moving to the north. After some discussion it was established that they had spent 10 days in a different state and then moved between different places.
According to the delegate’s decision, during her interview applicant A confirmed that she had a group of Pakistani friends in Australia. The decision also notes that applicant A had the assistance of a migration agent when she applied for a student visa after arriving in Australia.
At the hearing I asked the applicants why they had not sought protection when they first arrived in Australia in mid-2010. They said that they had not been aware of this possibility until 2015. I advised them that I had great difficulty accepting that this. I observed that even if they had not been aware of this possibility before they arrived issues relating to asylum seekers and refugees were frequently covered in the Australian media and it was my understanding that the possibility of seeking protection was well-known in the Pakistani community and amongst student groups. I also observed that they could easily have sought advice from a lawyer or a community organisation. They maintained that they had no knowledge of the possibility of seeking protection until after they returned from Pakistan in 2015.
The applicants returned to Pakistan in February 2015 because their grandmother was ill and they thought it would be safe as people had told them that the situation had improved. They stayed at the home which they had shared with their grandmother and applicant B’s parents prior to the incidents in 2008.
In her written submissions to the Department applicant A said that on 16 March 2015 she and applicant B received a letter with the heading ‘life or death’ which demanded that they pay 2 million rupees or their children would be killed. They thought it might be a prank by one of their friends, but on 19 March 2015 they received a second letter with the same heading which demanded payment of 3 million rupees and threatened to harm them if they did not comply because they were Shias and killing Shia meant the assassins would go to heaven. There was a bullet with the letter. The applicants went to the police who told them they would investigate and after that the applicants could lodge a complaint. They contacted the police the next day and were told that the investigation had not been completed. The statement suggests that they were discriminated against in some way because they were Shias, but it is unclear what this involved. Following this incident, the applicants moved to applicant A’s mother’s house for two days and then went to stay with a friend until they left to return to Australia. They returned earlier than originally planned to avoid problems.
During their interview with the delegate the applicants repeated this claim and added that they had also received a threatening telephone call prior to reporting these threats to the police.
At the hearing applicant A and B repeated their earlier claims regarding the threatening letters and telephone call. They said that the letters contained religious insults and threats of harm if they failed to pay the money demanded. According to applicant B there was a PO Box address on the letters, but neither of them provided any information on how or where the money demanded should be paid. During the telephone call the caller said that instructions would be provided shortly. The applicants were not sure whether the demands were linked to the events in 2008. They said that they were aware of other people receiving letters demanding money.
Applicant B said the second letter and the telephone call were received on the same day and after that he went to the police. The police took an unsigned statement. He said that the officer who took his statement commented on his religion and he thought that this impacted on his treatment in some way. The following day applicant B telephoned the police and asked what they had done in regard to the case. He spoke to the person who had taken his statement, but that officer did not seem to recall the case. He spoke to a more senior officer and asked to be provided with some protection, for example an armed guard for his house until they left or to arrange for the police to increase patrols near his house. He said that they did not agree to provide this protection. He did not contact the police again after that.
Immediately after going to the police station the applicants moved to applicant A’s mother’s house. The following day they saw a suspicious looking man walking around and watching the apartment all day. He left in the evening and the applicants went to a friend’s house where they remained until they came to Australia. Applicant B destroyed his SIM to avoid any further calls. No letters were sent to his grandmother’s house, nor were any members of his family contacted or threatened.
The applicant B’s brother gave evidence that he had accompanied applicant B to the police station because applicant B had received two threatening letters, the second of which contained a bullet. He said that the did not know who sent the letters. He said that he was not aware of any other threats against his brother. He said that the police did not appear to be very interested in the complaint, so he advised the applicants to return to Australia as soon as possible.
At the hearing I advised the applicants that even if I accepted their claims regarding the incidents in 2008 it appeared unlikely that the letters they claimed to have received in 2015 where linked to these events. Applicant B said he did not know if there was a link but it was possible. He also said that the letters mentioned his religion and he believed this may have been the reason for the attempted extortion.
I advised the applicants that I also had concerns about their claims regarding the events in 2008. I observed that if applicant B was attacked in 2008 it appeared likely that it was a random attack by someone who saw that he was Shia rather than a targeted attack by someone who recognised him for any reason and that in these circumstances their reaction seemed somewhat extreme. I noted that the applicant’s failure to leave Pakistan in a timely manner after receiving student visas and their failure to seek protection in 2010 suggested that they were not fearful at that time. Furthermore, even if I accepted their evidence regarding the events in 2008 at face value, they took place some 13 years ago, and I found it highly unlikely they would face problems for reasons connected to these events now.
Applicant A said that when she and applicant B arrived in Australia in 2010 they had hoped things would improve and they could return, but after their return in 2015 they realised it was still not safe. Applicant B said that they had been lucky to escape harm in the past. They maintained that their claims were true and they were unaware of the possibility of seeking protection until 2015. He said that he would not have stayed outside Pakistan separated from his family for many years if he had not been at risk of harm.
I advised the applicants that I had concerns about the claims that they had made regarding the letters they had received in 2015, but even if I accepted these claims at face value it was now some six years since these events and it appeared unlikely to be a problem if they returned to Pakistan now. Applicant B said that he thought that the extortion was linked to his religion and because of this he was concerned that he would have problems on his return. I observed that it seemed strange that no other member of his family had similar problems if they were linked to his religion. He said that apart from his wife his family was not deeply involved in religious activities.
Applicant B said that he was not sure what would happen if he returned, but it appeared that that the people had waited a long time for revenge and things could be worse if they returned. Applicant A said that her children had lived in Australia for most of their lives and might be harmed if they returned to Pakistan.
I noted that the applicants had claimed to fear harm because of their Shia religion. I advised them that it was my understanding that some 30 per cent of Karachi’s population of somewhere between 20 and 25 million were Shias. Applicant B said that he understood only 20 per cent of the population were Shias. I also advised them that it was my understanding that Shias were represented at all levels of society in Karachi, from the rich and powerful to the poor and powerless and that Shias played a significant part in politics. The applicants agreed that this was correct. I advised the applicants that according to DFAT Shias did not generally face official discrimination, although they may face some social discrimination in some areas. I also advised them while I was aware that Karachi had a history of violence much of this violence had been political or criminal in nature. I noted that the level of violence including religious violence had declined in recent years. Finally, I noted that while applicant B had spoken about the death of a cousin when a mosque was bombed, according to their evidence members of their close families had not faced significant problems because of their religion. I advised them that in those circumstances it appeared unlikely that they would face significant problems if they returned to Pakistan because of their religion.
In response Applicant B said that there were many problems for Shias in Karachi. He said that many Shia had been picked up by the authorities and they had disappeared. He said that he did not know why this was happening. I advised him I was aware that some Shias had been arrested by the authorities, but the reasons for this were unclear and it was not my understanding that the disappearances or arrests were widespread or likely to cause problems for him or applicant A.
Applicant A said that her husband’s friend [Mr A] had been killed in recent years, but she did not know of anyone else who had been attacked.
During the hearing I advised the applicants that I was not aware of any evidence which suggested that they or their children would be at risk of harm if they returned to Pakistan because they were Shias who had spent time in Australia. I advised them that it was my understanding that many Pakistanis travelled abroad for a range of reasons and returned without experiencing harm. I noted that DFAT had advised Pakistanis who travelled or sought to migrate were not usually at risk of violence or other forms of harm on return to Pakistan for that reason.

In response Applicant B said that they would not have faced problems if applicant A had not been involved in the arrest of the two women who attempted to bomb the Imambargah.
Following the hearing the applicants’ representatives provided a submission which addressed a number of the issues regarding the applicants’ credibility that had been raised in the hearing and submitted that the applicants’ claims were consistent and plausible and should be accepted as credible.
The submission claims for the first time that applicant B might be at risk of harm on return to Pakistan because he had travelled to Syria. In support of this claim the submission referred to an article dated 14 September 2020 which states that Shias had been disappeared in Pakistan prior to May 2018 in circumstances which suggested that they had been taken by the security forces because they were suspected of involvement in the Syrian civil war or sectarian violence in Pakistan.
With regard to the situation for Shias in Pakistan, the submission states that independent evidence states that there has been an increased presence of Sunni extremist anti-Shia groups, violent anti-Shia protests and blasphemy cases in Pakistan in general and Karachi in particular since mid to late 2020. In support of this the applicants’ representative provided articles and extracts from articles mostly dated late 2020 and early 2021, which report on a rise of sectarian rhetoric and violence targeting Shias and other minorities, including anti-Shia demonstrations in Karachi and other cities in August 2020, and the lodgement of about 50 blasphemy cases, mostly against Shia leaders who were accused of insulting Islamic figures during religious processions. Many state that anti-Shia radicals often have at least implicit support from the authorities, or that the authorities have failed to act appropriately against these attacks or threats against Shias.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After considering all of the evidence, I do not find the applicants to be truthful or credible witnesses.
Failure to leave Pakistan or seek protection in a timely manner
The applicants claim that they were so fearful after the attempted bombing and the attack on applicant B in 2008 that they left their family home and moved a number of times to avoid further harm. They claim that they obtained student visas primarily in order to depart Pakistan because they were fearful. However, they remained in the country for two months after being granted visa in March 2010. When asked the reason for this delay at the hearing neither of them provided a plausible explanation. Applicant A said there must have been a reason, but she could not recall. Applicant B said that he had gone into hiding. This does not explain why the applicants did not flee as soon as they obtained the student visas. If they were so fearful that they were in hiding I believe that they would have left the country as soon as they could purchase a ticket.
I find the applicant’s failure to depart Pakistan in a timely fashion after being granted student visas in 2010 a strong indication that they were not fearful of harm for any reason at that time and that they have not provided an honest account of their experiences prior to leaving Pakistan in 2010.
In addition, despite claiming that they obtained student visas in order to flee Pakistan in 2010, the applicants did not apply for protection until 2015. They claim that they were not aware of this possibility of applying for a protection visa prior to that time. I do not accept this explanation. As pointed out at the hearing, knowledge of this possibly is widely known in Australia, particularly amongst international students and migrant communities and the applicant could easily have obtained information on their options from the migration agent who assisted with their student visa applications.
find that the applicant’s failure to seek protection in Australia when they arrived 2010 a further strong indication that they were not fearful of harm for any reason when they arrived in Australia in 2010 and that they have not provided an honest account of their experiences prior to leaving Pakistan in 2010.
The events of 2008
I found the applicants’ account of the events of early 2008 and their activities and movements following these events confused and unpersuasive.
I find it highly unlikely that anyone planning to bomb a mosque or Imambargah would do so by attempting to enter the building carry bombs in a box when it would have been clear to anyone approaching the building that entrants were being checked prior to entry. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that someone who witnessed an attempt to bomb a Imambargah they regularly attended be fearful of retuning to that Imambargah, in my view it is not plausible that the applicants would have left their home and moved repeatedly for the next two years because they believed they faced a serious threat of harm from the women who attempted to bomb the Imambargah or their associates. Nobody else involved in preventing the attack was threated or harmed, which would be a strong indication that nobody involved in foiling the attack was at risk of harm. According to applicant A she was the only one at risk of harm from the women who attempted to bomb the Imambargah in 2008 because she was the first to deny them entry and because one of them shouted a threat at her. This is clearly speculation and in my view it is not plausible that applicant A would have been the only one at risk of harm if the would-be bombers or their associates had the desire and capability to seek revenge on those who foiled the attack. I also note that applicant A began to attend the Imambargah again about three months after the attack, 2008 albeit infrequently, which in my view indicates she was not in hiding and not fearful of further attacks
The only evidence which might suggest that the people involved in the bombing had a continuing adverse interest in applicant A is the claimed attack on applicant B several weeks later. The applicants claim that they believed that the people who carried out this attack were associated with the would-be bombers and that is why they went into hiding or semi-hiding to avoid further problems. However, according to both applicants, applicant B’s attackers abused him for being a Shia, but said nothing about applicant A or the attempted bombing of the Imambargah. They said that only link between these events was the fact that the perpetrators had a muhajir accent. And while applicant B speculated in his April 2021 statement that he could have been identified as associated with applicant A because his family was well-known, both applicants stated at the hearing that he was probably recognised him as a Shia because of his clothing and because he was coming from a religious event. Again while an attack of this kind would no doubt be frightening, I find the claim that the applicants believed or strongly suspected that it was carried out by people associated with the women who attempted to bomb the Imambargah merely because they had the same accent and remain in hiding or semi hiding for two years to escape further harm implausible and I do not accept it.
If I accept the applicants’ evidence at the hearing regarding the attack on applicant B at face value it indicates that he was victim of a random sectarian attack in the street carried out people who knew nothing about him apart from his religion which they discerned from his clothing and the fact that he had been at a religious gathering. In my view it is not plausible that the applicants would have decided to leave their home and move repeatedly over the next two years because applicant B was attacked in the street by unknown people who did not know his identity.
In considering the applicants’ claims regarding their reasons for going into hiding, I acknowledge that people do not always behave in what others may view as a rational manner, particularly when they are fearful and I might perhaps have given the applicants the benefit of the doubt if these were the only problems with their claims. However, this is not the case. I also found their evidence regarding their movements after the 2008 attack on applicant B confused and unconvincing.
According to the applicants’ protection visa application they resided at the same address in Pakistan following their marriage. Applicant B claims that they did not provide all of the addresses at which they resided after 2008 because they were temporary. I might have accepted this claim where it not for the fact that there is nothing in applicant A’s initial statement which suggests that they were in hiding or moved repeatedly. I do not believe she would have failed to mention such a significant fact in her first statement and find this to be a strong indication that the applicants were in hiding or moving constantly after the attack on applicant B in 2008. I also find it unlikely that applicant B would not recall whether applicant A was with him when he left the family home to stay with a friend following that attack and unlikely that he would have decided to travel to Syria for ten days leaving his wife and children in Pakistan during time in which he claims that they were at risk of harm.
More significantly, I found the applicants’ evidence regarding their employment and movements after 2008 confused and contradictory. As noted above, according to the applicant’s protection visa application she [worked in Occupation 1] at her home until 2010, which does not sit well with the clam that she was in hiding or moving from place to place. The application also states that Applicant B worked in the same job from 2005 until his departure from Pakistan in 2010. When asked at the hearing about his employment following the attack in 2008 he initially said that he could not recall what happened in relation to his work after he was attacked, then changed his evidence regarding the number of jobs he had. Applicant A said that applicant B had changed jobs several times after 2008. Both applicants said that applicant B was off work for several months after being attacked because of his injuries. Applicant B said this was because he was unable to walk. This is completely at odds with the evidence in his earlier submissions when he said that after being shot he had outrun his attackers, that his [Body Part 2] had merely been grazed by a bullet and that the person who treated him at the clinic advised him to use a stick to take the pressure off his wound but also told him his injuries were not serious.
After considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not accept that the applicants have provided an honest or accurate account of the problems they faced in 2008 or their reasons for leaving Pakistan in 2010.
I do not accept that applicant A was involved in preventing an attempt to bomb the Imambargah she attended in 2008. It follows that I do not accept that she threatened by a woman who was arrested after attempting to bomb the Imamburg or that applicant B was attacked and injured in the street because associates of this woman wanted to avenge her arrest or because of his Shia religion or for any other reason. Furthermore, in light of my findings on the applicants’ credibility, I am not satisfied that applicant B was attacked in the street in 2008 for any reason. Nor do I accept that the applicants were in hiding or moving from place to place from early 2008 until they departed for Australia in 2010. I believe that they concocted these claims to support their application for protection so that they could remain in Australia.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the evidence from applicant B’s brother. However, he is a close relative of the applicant, not a disinterested party. While I have had regard to his evidence, it does not overcome my concerns regarding applicant B’s truthfulness regarding the claimed attacks in 2008 and I have given it little weight. I have also considered the medical evidence regarding applicant B’s scars. I accept that he has scars on his [Body Part 1] and [Body Part 2], but not that they relate to injuries sustained during an attack in the street in early 2008.
Threats in 2015
As I do not accept that the applicants were threatened by anyone because applicant A was involved in foiling an attempt to bomb a Shia Imambargah in Karachi in 2008 it follows that I do not accept that they received threatening letters from someone associated with the women involved in the attempted bombing when they returned to Pakistan in 2015.
After considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicants received threating letters from anyone while they were in Pakistan in 2015.
It is certainly true that extortion by criminals, frequently associated with the MQM has been relatively common in recent years. DFAT’s Country Information Report on Pakistan dated 20 February 2019 notes that the police have arrested and killed many people accused of involvement in crimes such as extortion in Karachi during an ongoing crackdown on crime and violence in the city. However, even if I ignore my finding regarding the applicants’ credibility in relation to their claims regarding events which occurred prior to their departure in 2010, their evidence regarding the threats they received in 2015 was confused and unpersuasive. .
In the first place, their evidence changed in relatively small but telling ways over time. In her written submissions to the Department applicant A claimed that they received two threatening letters after which they went to the police and then moved to applicant A’s mother’s house. During their interview with the delegate the applicants added that they had received a threatening telephone call before going to the police. At the hearing they added that they had left applicant A’s mother’s house because they believed that they were being watched by a suspicious man. The applicants’ protection visa application was lodged less than a month after these claimed events and I do not believed that they would have failed to provide all a complete account of the events which caused them to seek protection in the first statement of claims provided to the Department. Their failure to do so casts significant doubt on the credibility of these claims.
Secondly, I found some aspects of their evidence regarding these letters unpersuasive. In my view it is not plausible that parents who received a letter threatening to kill their children unless they agreed to pay a large sum of money would believe the letter was a prank and not to be taken seriously, particularly not in a city such as Karachi were extortion has long been a serious problem and in light of their evidence that they were aware of other people receiving similar letters. I also find it unlikely that extortionists would send two letters demanding money without giving any information of when or how the money was to be paid.
While I might have been prepared to give the applicants the benefit of the doubt in relation to these matters if their evidence had otherwise been credible. However, this is not the case. As discussed above, I believe that they concocted the claims regarding their experiences prior to 2010 and provided false evidence regarding their knowledge of the possibility of seeking protection prior to 2015. In these circumstances and in light of the problems set out above I find that they also concocted the claims regarding the threatening letters which the received in 2015.
In reaching this conclusion I have noted the applicants’ evidence that they returned to Australia earlier than originally planned because they were fearful of harm after receiving threatening letters. It may be that the applicants changed their plans and returned to Australia earlier that originally planned. However, given my findings set out above, I am not satisfied that it was because they were afraid that someone would harm them if they remained in Pakistan.
I have also considered the evidence from applicant B’s brother regarding his knowledge of the letters. However, as noted above he is not a disinterested party and while I have considered his evidence regarding the letters, it does not overcome my concerns regarding the applicants’ credibility and I have given it little weight.

100. After considering all of the evidence, I do not accept that the applicants received threatening letters from anyone during their brief stay in Pakistan in 2015. It follows that I do not accept that applicant B faced problems because of his religion when he attempted to report these threats to the police or that the applicants moved from their grandmother’s house to applicant A’s mother’s house to avoid further threats or that they left applicant A’s mother’s house after observing a suspicious man outside or that they took any measures to avoid threats or problems Pakistan before returning to Australia in 2015. I believe that these claims were also manufactured to support their claim for protection in Australia.
The applicants’ involvement with their religion and problems faced by their friends and relatives
101. Applicant A claims that her grandmother was in charge of the Imambargah which she also attended and that she volunteered at that Imambargah from a young age. She has provided documents which support the former claim and I accept it as true. Given her willingness to concoct claims in support of her application, I am sceptical of the latter claim. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this decision I accept that she performed a number of tasks at the Imambargah until 2008. However, I note there is nothing in the evidence which suggests that she held a senior or leadership position at the Imambargah or that she continued with activities of this kind after 2008
102. Applicant A claims that her brother left Pakistan in the 1990s after facing some problems related to his religion. This is at odds with her evidence at the hearing when she said that no members of her family had experienced problems because of their religion. However, as discussed below, Shias have sometimes faced problems in Pakistan for many years and for the purposes of this decision I accept that applicant A’s brother left Pakistan in the 1990s because of problems related to his religion. I note that there is no suggestion that the applicant or any other member of her family faced problems at any time due to her brother’s activities in the 1990s.
103. Applicant B claims that his father was a volunteer who worked hard for his religion. I accept this claim. However, I noted that there is no suggestion that applicant B’s father held a leadership position within the Shia community, or that his father or applicant B himself or anyone else faced problems because of his father’s role as a volunteer who worked for the Shia faith.
104. Applicant B claims that he came for a well-known Shia family in his area. However, he has not claimed to be at risk of harm in Pakistan for this reason. In his xxx statement he suggested that he was attacked in 2008 because his family was well known and the people who allegedly attacked applicant A shortly before this were easily able to locate him. However, even if I accepted his evidence at the hearing at face value (which I do not), it does not suggest that his attackers recognised him or targeted him. That said, I accept that applicant B’s family were well known within the Shia community associated with the xxx mosque and Imambargah due to grandmother’s role at the Imambargah. However, on the evidence currently before me, I am not satisfied that his family was prominent or well-known in the broader community in his local area or elsewhere.
105. Applicant B claims that one of his cousins was killed when a mosque was bombed in 2003 or 2004. As noted above, independent evidence confirms that a mosque in Karachi was bombed in 2004 resulting in a number of deaths and I accept that applicant B’s cousin was amongst the unfortunate victims of this event. However, there is nothing in the evidence which suggests that he was the target of the attack or that the attack was linked in any way to the applicant (beyond the fact the victims were also Shia). I also accept that the police fired at people rushed to the mosque and began to look for survivors. I am unaware of any evidence that the police have attacked or killed Shias looking for survivors of a bombing and it appears likely that the shots were fired to prevent the crowd from entering a possibly dangerous situation.

106. Applicant B claims that some members of the Mosque he attended faced problems of some kind at some time and that some of them were killed. The only specific example of such harm which he provided was the death of his friend [Mr A] who he claims was shot dead in 2013. I found Applicant B’s evidence regarding these matters vague and unconvincing and in light of his willingness to provide false evidence, I have significant doubts regarding the credibility of these claims. Nevertheless, I accept that some people from the large mosque he attended faced problems of some kind at some time and that his friend [Mr A] was murdered in 2013 by unknown people for unknown reasons and that other members of the mosque may also have been victims of violence at some time for some reason. However, while it may be that religion played a role in some of these incidents, I am not satisfied that [Mr A]’s death or any other problems which members of the mosque may have faced were linked in any way to their association with applicants.
107. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANTS’ CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
108. As I do not accept that the applicants were threatened or attacked by anyone for any reason in 2008 or 2015 it follows that I do not accept that they face a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm if they return to Pakistan for any reasons connected to these claims
109. I accept that the applicants are observant Shias. I accept that applicant A volunteered for relatively low-level duties at the Imambargah which was managed by her grandmother prior to early 2008. However, there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that they experienced problems of any kind in Pakistan prior to their departure in 2015. I note that their grandmother who appears to have been a leading figure in the Shia community for many years never experienced any problems. While this alone does not mean that they would not be at risk of harm if they returned to Pakistan, after considering the available evidence regarding the situation of Shias in Karachi, I am not satisfied that either of them of their children face a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm if they return to Pakistan within the reasonably foreseeable because of their Shia religion.
110. Shias in Pakistan have been and continue to be victims of sectarian and extremist violence in Pakistan. However, according to DFAT. the nature and frequency of this violence varies significantly between locations. In 2019 DFAT assessed the risk of such harm for Shias in Karachi to be low. Statistics in EASO’s 2020 report also indicate that in the context of the large Shia population in Karachi, the risk of harm from sectarian or extremist violence for Shias in general is low. DFAT advice and other evidence indicates that the risk of harm increases for leading or prominent figures in the community. For example, reports indicate that blasphemy cases have been registered against leading figures particularly those who made public speeches seen as insulting to Sunni beliefs during Muharram. However, the number of cases (some 40 throughout the country during Murharram) is also relatively low in comparison to the total population. In any event, I do not accept that applicant A’s relatively minor activities as a volunteer prior to 2008 mean that she was or would be seen as a leading figure in the Shia community. There is no suggestion that applicant B played a leading role in the Shia community. Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that either of them would become involved in public activities within the Shia community in Karachi which would cause them to be viewed as Shia leaders or as insulting Sunni Islam if they return to Pakistan.
111. As noted above, the applicant has provided a number of reports on the situation for Shia in Pakistan. Several of these them report on large anti-Shia demonstrations which involved violence against Shia mosques in some parts of Karachi in August and September 2020. The report in Arab News dated 30 August 2020 provides a useful account of these developments and their significance. It states that thousands of anti-Shiite protestors had rallied in Karachi following a raft of blasphemy accusations against major Shiite leaders who made what the demonstrators viewed as disparaging remarks about historic Islamic figures during an Ashura procession. The article notes that sectarian violence by anti-Shia militant groups including bombing Shia mosques and attacking Shia processions has erupted in fits and bursts for decades in Pakistan. A serious outbreak of such violence in 2015 had resulted in crack-down by security forces which has resulted in a dramatic drop in sectarian violence. It notes that while Karachi was once plagued with political, sectarian and ethnic violence which resulted in thousands of deaths, actions by security forces since 2013 have resulted in a considerable lull in violence, although scattered attacks still occur.
112. No evidence has been provided which suggests a continuing significant increase in anti-Shia violence since the events of August or September 2020 such that DFAT’s evaluation of the risk to Shia in the city no longer applies. Nor have I located any evidence which suggests that this is the case.
113. Several of the articles submitted relate to blasphemy cases in Pakistan. For example, a DW report dated 14 September 2020 states that rights groups are alarmed at the recent rise of blasphemy case in Pakistan. It reports that about 1549 blasphemy cases were lodged in Pakistan in the thirty-year period between 1987 and 2017 and that at least 40 such cases were lodged in August 2020. Most cases related to speeches made by Shias during religious processions. It is unclear how many of these cases were lodged in Karachi, but the report notes that there was an increase in such cases following the introduction of a new law in Punjab. Karachi is not in Punjab. The article in the Asia Times dated 15 September 2020 states that two Shia Muslims were murdered and around 50 had blasphemy cases filed against them in the past month. It is unclear where in Pakistan these events occurred.
114. The applicants are not leading Shias and there is nothing in the evidence which suggests that they have or are likely to make speeches during religious processions or engage in any other activities which could result in extremists or anyone else accusing them of blasphemy or lodging blasphemy cases against them within the reasonably foreseeable future. I am not satisfied that the applicants face a real chance of experiencing serious harm or significant harm in the form of lodgement of a blasphemy case or violence related to accusations of blasphemy if they return to Pakistan within the reasonably foreseeable future.
115. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicants have been denied the right to practice their religion or had that right significantly restricted. They do not claim to have had problems obtaining an education or employment or to have faced problems accessing services or to have experienced significant social or official discrimination in Pakistan because of their religion in the past or to fear such harm in in the future. This accords with the advice from DFAT which states that Shias are represented at all levels of society in Pakistan, well represented in parliament and do not generally face discrimination in areas such as employment or education or access to services such as health care.
116. Finally, I have noted that the applicants’ grandmother played a leading role in the local Imambargah, that applicant A’s brother faced problems in the 1990s because of his religion, that B’s father also did volunteer work for the Shia community and that one of his cousins was killed when a mosque was bombed in 2003. However, there is no suggestion that this caused problems for the applicants at any time in the past and there is nothing in the available country information which suggests that they would be of adverse interest to anti-Shia extremists or anyone else because of their relationship to these people if they returned to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
117. After considering all of the relevant evidence individually and cumulatively I am not satisfied that the applicants or their children face a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm because of their Shia religion if they return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
118. I have considered the claim that applicant B might be at risk of arrest or disappearance because he spent 9 days in Syria in 2009. As noted above, the Diplomat article provided by the applicant’s representative states that up to 300 Shias had been arrested or disappeared prior to 2018 in circumstances which suggested that they had been taken by the security forces because they were suspected of involvement in the Syrian civil war or sectarian violence in Pakistan. According to this article unofficial estimates suggest that between 700 and 5,000 Pakistanis had been recruited by Iran to fight against ISIS in Syria and security officials were concerned they might pose a threat to Pakistan’s security. According to the article Shia groups were conducting a campaign for the release or return of these people and a number had been released or returned. It notes that at the time of the article there are 34 recorded cases of missing Shias from different parts of the country who have been missing for two years or more.
119. In my view there is nothing in this report or any of the other reports provided following the hearing which suggests that applicant B is at risk of being detained or disappearing if he returns to Pakistan because he spent 9 days in Syria in 2009. There is no suggestion that the Pakistani authorities had an adverse interest in him on his return from Syria in 2009 or during his return to Pakistan in 2015 and I find the possibility that they would arrest him or abduct him if he returned to Pakistan now, over eleven years since his visit to Syria vanishingly remote. And as there is no suggestion that that applicant has been involved in sectarian activities of any kind, I find the chance that the would be of interest to the authorities and arrested or disappeared if he returned to Pakistan equally remote.
120. After considering all of the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that the applicant B faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm because of his visit to Syria in 2009 if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
121. I have considered applicant A’s claim that her children might be at risk of harm if they returned to Pakistan after living for so many years in Australia. I have also considered the possibility that applicant A or applicant B might be at risk of harm in Pakistan because of their time in Australia. As pointed out at the hearing, many Pakistanis travel to and from Pakistan without facing problems. According to DFAT advice, people returning to Pakistan after attempting to migrate are typically able to reintegrate into the community without repercussions stemming from their migration attempt and do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination as a result of their attempt to migrate, or because of having lived in a western country. I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that children aged between two and thirteen who are returning to Pakistan with the protection of their parents are at risk of harm because of they have resided in Australia or for any other reason. Nor am I aware of any evidence which suggests that applicant A or applicant B would be at risk of harm in Pakistan because they have resided in Australia.
122. After considering all of the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that the applicants’ children or the applicants themselves face a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm if they return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because they have resided in Australia for an extended period.
123. Finally, I have considered the claim that applicant C would be at risk of harm on return to Pakistan because of her relationship to her parents. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that applicant C’s parents face a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Pakistan for any reason and nothing in the evidence which suggests that applicant C or faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Pakistan because of relationship to her parents.
124. After considering all of the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that applicant C faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm if she returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because her membership of her family.
DO THE APPLICANTS HAVE A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION IN PAKISTAN?
125. Having considered the applicants’ claims individually and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that any of them will face serious harm amounting to persecution for any of the reasons in s.5J(1) if they return to Pakistan within the reasonably foreseeable future. I am therefore not satisfied that any of them has a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan.
DO THE APPLICANTS MEET THE COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CRITERIA?
126. After considering the applicants’ claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that any of them faces a real risk of suffering significant harm on return to Pakistan. Therefore, 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 Pakistan there is a real risk that any of them will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSION
127. 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
128. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Roslyn Smidt
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.
…

[2021] AATA 2990

30 June 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction