1919614 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in August 2012, claimed to fear persecution in Pakistan due to his Shi’a religion and his refusal to join the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI). His claims included allegations of his brother's involvement with the ISI, a warning from a mullah that the applicant was also being sought by the ISI, and a subsequent warning to his father to keep quiet about the matter. The applicant lodged his protection visa application in October 2017, and the delegate refused it in July 2019.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or whether he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Pakistan under section 36(2)(aa). This involved considering the applicant's claims of persecution based on his religion and his fear of recruitment by the ISI, as well as the evidence relating to the death of his brother and the circumstances surrounding his departure from Pakistan.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act. While the applicant provided evidence of his brother's death and his own experiences at a madrassa, including physical assault and pressure to undertake military-style training, the court was not satisfied that these circumstances established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group, or that he faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. The court noted the delegate's reasons for refusal, including a lack of detail in the applicant's account, the vagueness of some evidence, and the delay in applying for protection. The court also considered the applicant's further evidence and submissions provided at the hearing but ultimately concluded that the applicant did not meet the necessary criteria for the grant of a protection visa.