1926967 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered an application for review of a delegate's decision concerning a protection visa. The applicant, a Shia Muslim from Pakistan, claimed to fear persecution due to her religious minority status in a Sunni majority country. She alleged a series of targeted attacks against herself and her family, including an incident where her son was shot and injured, threats made after reporting the matter to the police, and the death of her sister, whom she believed was mistaken for her. The applicant also asserted that her children in Pakistan were subsequently attacked and lived in hiding, and that Pakistani police were largely ineffectual in providing protection. Furthermore, she claimed to be unable to subsist upon return due to her age, lack of work experience, and the depletion of her financial resources.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether there was a real chance she would suffer serious harm if returned to Pakistan due to her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Pakistan, there was a real risk of her suffering significant harm, as per the complementary protection criterion. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, the reliability of her evidence, and the current country information regarding the security situation for Shia Muslims in Pakistan.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, including discrepancies regarding her place of birth and citizenship, and the timing and nature of financial transactions related to the sale of her property. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of mental health issues, the Tribunal found the supporting medical documentation to be limited. The Tribunal also considered the delegate's findings, which had questioned the veracity of several key events, including the alleged attack in April 2016, the threatening calls, the need to go into hiding, and the circumstances surrounding her sister's death, suggesting these events may have been fabricated or exaggerated to enhance the protection claim. The Tribunal also took into account country information indicating a decline in attacks and increased police security in Pakistan, and the prevalence of document fraud.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. This outcome was based on the Tribunal's assessment that the applicant had not established a real chance of suffering serious harm or significant harm upon return to Pakistan, largely due to the identified inconsistencies and lack of credible supporting evidence for the claimed persecution.