2002251 (Refugee)

2002251 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 3950 (19 September 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: MrsNwando Oranye (MARN: 1576909)
CASE NUMBER: 2002251

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Pakistan
MEMBER:C. Packer
DATE:19 September 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 19 September 2022 at 4:17pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUFEE – protection visa – Pakistan – Federal Circuit Court remittal – religion – Shia – fear of Sunni extremists – imputed political opinion – armed assault – false criminal cases – divorce without the applicant’s knowledge – delay in applying for protection – state protection – religious activities in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 48, 65, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 Home Affairs on 30 October 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who is a citizen of Pakistan, first entered Australia [in] November 2014 with a Student dependent visa.
On 18 June 2015 the applicant applied for a protection visa. On 3 August 2017 the applicant attended an interview with a delegate. On 30 October 2018 the delegate refused the application.
The applicant sought a review (case 1836705). However, the Tribunal (differently constituted) found the review application was made out of time and decided that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
[In] January 2020 the Federal Circuit Court of Australia set aside the Tribunal decision. The matter is now before the Tribunal pursuant to an order of the Court.
On 22 June 2021 the applicant attended a Tribunal hearing (hearing 1). His representative attended. On 2 June 2022 the applicant attended a second hearing (hearing 2). At hearing, I discussed country information and in particular at hearing 2 I discussed the later Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report: DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 25 January 2022.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether the applicant is entitled to complementary protection. The applicant’s narrative is centred on his claims to be a Shia Muslim; and how he had been targeted and harmed by extremist Sunnis who brought false criminal cases brought against him in Lahore, Pakistan. However, my great concerns with significant elements of the applicant’s narrative and evidence including documentary evidence lead me to disbelieve his claims, narrative and evidence in their entirety. My assessment follows.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence, FINDINGS
Background
The applicant’s protection visa application provided some basic background information, and the applicant supplemented this with further details provided to the delegate, in the review and at hearing.
In the written application, the applicant stated that he was from Lahore, Punjab province, Pakistan. He showed one address in Lahore. He completed his schooling to [grade], and he showed no employment. He was granted a Student visa as a dependant on 17 February 2014 and arrived in Australia [in] November 2014. He speaks and knows Urdu and Punjabi. He stated he was divorced. He showed no family.
At hearing the applicant stated his mother had died in August 2018. He had a father (unknown address), [and specified family members] ([in] Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Gujrat, Lahore and other places in Punjab). He had no contact with family members since his mother died.
At hearing the applicant stated he had married [wife’s name]. They met 2011 and it was a ‘love’ marriage; they married [in] December 2012; she secretly divorced him before they departed Pakistan but only told him at Sydney airport when they arrived together in Australia. He does not have permission to work and so he financially supports himself in Australia by working for friends and through their support.
General country information[1] shows that Pakistan is a Muslim-majority state located in South Asia and is the sixth most populous country in the world, with the 2017 census revealing a population of 207.7 million. More than half the population lives in the province of Punjab, and 60% of the total population lives in rural areas. There is a large and growing youth bulge; according to the United Nations Population Fund, a third of the population is aged 10-24 years. The largest cities are Karachi (16.5 million) and Lahore (13.1 million). The capital, Islamabad, has a population of 1.2 million. Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic with a bicameral legislature consisting of the National Assembly and the Senate. Pakistan includes four provinces – Sindh (capital: Karachi), Punjab (capital: Lahore), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly the North-West Frontier Province and now including the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas; capital: Peshawar) and Balochistan (capital: Quetta). Islamabad has its own status as a 'Federal Capital Territory'. Pakistan is home to five major ethnic groups and many smaller ones. According to the CIA World Factbook, the population is 44.7% Punjabi, 15.4% Pashtun, 14.1% Sindhi, 8.4% Saraiki, 7.6% Muhajirs, 3.6% Balochi, and 6.3% others.
[1] The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report: DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 25 January 2022, (the DFAT report Pakistan) [
Summary of claims
The applicant claims to fear harm in Pakistan from anti-Shia extremists, groups and other non-State agents, and the authorities in Lahore. He claims this is because, as summarised:
·He is a Shia Muslim and had been active in promoting the Shia religion
·He had been an active member of [Shia Organisation 1], Lahore and held the office of the [Official 1] for a local area of this organisation
·Members of Sipah-e-Sahaba (a Sunni group) had threatened and harmed him, and attempted to harm him, in Lahore
·In 2011 he was shot by men on motorbikes
·[In] June 2013 several men from Sipah-e-Sahaba shot at his house (he sometimes places this incident in March 2014)
·In 2013 he received a message telling him to leave the Shia religion or be killed
·He was in hiding for years before he departed Pakistan
·False criminal cases had been made against him in Lahore by Sunni extremists
·False criminal cases are pending against him and he has been declared an absconder which means he would be surely convicted and may be persecuted by religious parties
·Members of Sipah-e-Sahaba and/or other Sunni groups or their agents would harm him if he returned to Pakistan
·The police did not action his complaints and First Information Reports and so he does not trust them
·The courts corruptly did not action the court actions he initiated
·His mother had been harmed by a religious group; his father and other family members had been threatened and harmed and had left Lahore
Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following material (not all is listed):
·the applicant’s Protection visa application form lodged on 18 June 2015, and his written statement which includes reasons for seeking protection in Australia
·passport pages, his birth certificate
·the Protection visa decision record (‘delegate’s decision’) dated 30 October 2018, which is the subject of this review
·the application for review
·statements and submissions
·Letter of 23/6/2015 signed by [Lawyer A] or [name variant], [title], of [Law Firm 1], Lahore [in English with handwritten date]
·Letter of 22/6/2015 signed by [a titled official] of [Agency 1], Lahore [in English with handwritten date]
·Certificate dated 23/6/2015 signed by [an official] of [Shia Organisation 1] [in Urdu and translated to English in Pakistan]
·[Radiology] report of 6/2/2017
·A number of First Information Reports (FIRs), court petitions, statement to the police
·A number of court notices, arrest warrants, court orders
·Four letters from [Law Firm 1 variant], dated 12/7/2021 that verify previous letters and criminal charges
·Two letters from [Agency 1 name variant 1], dated 6/7/2021 that verify previous letter and the applicant’s life is in danger
·Two letters from [Shia Organisation 1] dated 8/7/2021 that verify previous letter and he “was an active member of [Shia Organisation 2] and also [Official 1] of [Location 1], Lahore” and if returns “merely be convicted in false cases and murdered by [Sunni Organisation 1]”
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments, on 22 June 2021. An Urdu and English interpreter was used, and the applicant stated that he understood the interpreter. His representative attended.
The delegate’s decision shows the applicant claimed that because of a head injury he does not have a good memory. At the start of the hearing I asked whether he was well and able to talk about his claims, and he stated he was. During the hearing he appeared to fully understand questions and he gave coherent answers and explanations. I assess that he was competent to give evidence and had a full opportunity to put forward his claims and arguments.
A second hearing was held on 2 June 2022. Again, at the start of the hearing I asked whether he was well and able to talk about his claims, and he stated he was. During the hearing he appeared to fully understand questions and he gave coherent answers and explanations. In my assessment of the applicant’s statements and evidence I always gave consideration to whether his evidence may have been affected by his claimed poor memory. At both hearings, if an explanation was unclear I asked a further question/s to clarify his evidence. I assess that he was competent to give evidence and had a full opportunity to put forward his claims and arguments. I assess that any memory problems he might have did not prevent or hinder him from fully understanding questions and giving coherent answers and explanations. At the hearings he appeared to fully understand the interpreters and did not say he had difficulties with the interpretation.
Assessment of claims: credibility
The applicant claims to be a national of Pakistan. I have sighted copies of his Pakistan passport. All the available evidence, including the applicant’s oral evidence and familiarity with Pakistan, supports his claim to be a Pakistan national. Pakistan is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing both the applicant’s protection claims, and his claims against the complementary protection grounds. Having considered the material before the Tribunal including the applicant’s evidence given at the hearing, I accept he has the identity he claims.
I have very strong credibility concerns with documents from Pakistan that the applicant provided to support his claims. At hearing I did not find the applicant to be credible when he discussed his application, claims and circumstances, and when he discussed the documents from Pakistan that he provided in the application and to the Tribunal.
First, the applicant’s evidence concerning his marriage, breakdown and separation raises credibility concerns.
At hearing 1 the applicant stated he married his wife on [a day in] December 2012. At hearing 2 I discussed the date of the marriage. He again said he married on [that day in] December 2012 and when I queried why he particularly remembered that date he stated he well remembered the date as he loved her. At hearing 2 I queried whether it had been a Shia ceremony, and he responded that it was not a Shia religious wedding because the ex-wife had a different religion and it had been a ‘love’ marriage. The applicant’s claim that he had a non-Shia wedding in a love marriage appears odd in light of his narrative that is strongly centred on his Shia religion and practice and his claimed strong involvement with the Shia mosque and Shia organisations before he departed Pakistan.
The applicant claims he and his wife were granted student visas and they travelled to Australia together- he held a student dependent visa- but on arrival at Sydney airport [in] November 2014 she told him that she had divorced him in Pakistan without his knowledge, and she left him at the airport. At hearing 1 he stated that he stayed in the airport all night, crying. At hearing 2 I pointed out that the terminal at Sydney International airport is closed to the public overnight for security reasons. He then responded that he stayed outside on a bench all night.
At hearing 2 I pointed out that it is unlikely that his wife was able to divorce him in Pakistan without his knowledge, in light of country information about divorce in Pakistan and if they were living together. He responded that a woman can go to court for a divorce and apply for Khula. However, my comments were informed by country information[2] that shows in Pakistan a wife has to file her divorce in the family court through a divorce lawyer on some special ground which is required to be proved by her lawyer; and divorce notices to the husband are sent by the family courts.
[2] Law & Procedure of divorce in Pakistan- Adv Jamila, Lahore, [>
The applicant’s claim that the couple separated literally at the airport on arrival [in] November 2014 is very different to a signed declaration in which he stated they separated in July 2015. In his later application for a Bridging (class WC subclass 030) visa (BVC) with change of conditions (ie seeking permission to work), the applicant provided a signed declaration dated 3 August 2015 in which he stated “My partner has been separated in the month of July 2015.”
Subsequently, in the review he has given changeable explanations for the declaration and the date of separation. At hearing 1 when this was put to the applicant, he responded that he did not submit any declaration and does not know about that. At hearing 2 I showed him the signed declaration, and he stated the signature might be fraudulent; agents can do this on their own and his signature is not hard to copy.
However, when I showed him other documents with his signature including a Form 956 and pointed out ostensibly the signatures were all the same, he gave another explanation. He repeated it is not his signature on the declaration and he said the declaration had been signed by the agent. He then claimed that representatives have taken his signature once and then used the signature or forged his signature on the application/documents, and they asked his permission. When I pointed out that doing so is inappropriate and queried whether he had had concerns about this practice, the applicant agreed it is inappropriate but said the agent’s office is two hours away, and they told him they would use his signature.
At the end of the hearing, I went through the s424AA procedure concerning the declaration and the information in the declaration. The applicant responded that the information is not what he had mentioned to the agent; the date is incorrect; and maybe it was an interpreter mistake.
In the application there were three documents all purportedly signed by the applicant on 3 August 2015: a form 956 (Advice by a migration agent form); a form 1005 (Application for a Bridging visa); and the statutory declaration. If I accept the applicant’s evidence that he did not sight or sign the statutory declaration, then ostensibly he would not have signed any of the linked documents. His evidence that, because of the inconvenient distance he would otherwise have to travel, he has arranged with a representative/s to use or forge his signature on documents and forms lodged with the Department, including a significant declaration- conduct that he accepts is inappropriate- raises strong concerns with documents that have his signature and strong concerns with the accuracy of the content of the documents purportedly signed by him. This raises strong concerns with his credibility.
The applicant also stated the representative had been responsible for his answer in the application concerning his residential address in Pakistan. At hearing 2 when I pointed out he had lived at the same address in Lahore until he departed Pakistan, he responded that since 2011 he had moved from place to place. When I pointed out his application shows just one address in Pakistan, he responded that in Pakistan they just put the home address. When I pointed out that was not what the application’s question had asked, he then stated that despite what the question asked, the representative had told him to mention just the address where he was born. His response raises additional strong concerns with the accuracy of the answers in the application.

Second, the applicant’s lengthy delay in seeking Australia’s protection does not support his claims to fear to return to Pakistan. The applicant entered Australia [in] November 2014 on a student dependent visa and he claims his wife left him at the airport. Nonetheless, he did not approach the Department until 16 June 2015 when he attempted to lodge a student 572 visa. Only after being told the application was invalid due to a section 48 bar, did he then lodge a protection visa application on 18 June 2015.
A submission of 19 February 2020 submitted the delay ‘was primarily because of the applicant’s spouse left the applicant soon after reaching Australia and due to no communication, the applicant was not aware of the noncompliance of the student visa until visa cancellation’, and also he had wanted to extend his stay on a student visa until he had ‘all supporting documentary evidence to prove applicant’s protection claims’.
At hearing 1 when I discussed his claim that his wife, who held the student visa, had left him at the airport and queried why he had not gone to the Department in order to regularise his migration status, he said variously that he was worried, he had not known where he was going to live, and the two to three months went so quickly.
However, I find these explanations unconvincing. He ostensibly had ample time before departing Pakistan to gather evidence in order to make a Protection claim in Australia. Regardless, in his application he showed he arrived in Australia [in] November 2014 and he had lived at the one address in Australia from November 2014. By the time he sought to make a student visa application he had been in Australia for seven months. His application shows he found accommodation within days of arriving in Australia and he then had a very lengthy period in which he was ostensibly able to gather evidence and seek Australia’s protection. He only lodged a protection visa application after finding out he was unable to make other applications. I consider that the applicant’s lengthy delay in seeking Australia’s protection does not support his claims to fear to return to Pakistan and this raises credibility concerns.
Third, I have very strong credibility concerns with documents from Pakistan that the applicant provided to support his claims. The documents from Pakistan are significant and concern:
·His lawyer in Lahore
·An organisation [Shia Organisation 1]
·The NGO [Agency 1]
·Legal documents that include First Information reports (FIRs), warrants, court orders and notices, petitions
At hearing 1 I pointed out country information[3] shows in Pakistan false documents are prevalent and easily obtained, and so I would carefully assess all of the documents he had provided.
[3] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Pakistan: Fraudulent documents other than identity documents, including methods of obtaining fraudulent documents and assessing the credibility of fraudulent documents; First Information Reports (FIRs), newspaper articles, academic qualifications, and land ownership titles, 13 December 2011, [>
At hearing 1 the applicant stated he had had no contact at all with the lawyer in Lahore since departing Pakistan. I queried whether anyone on his behalf had contact with the lawyer since he came to Australia, and he said no. I asked how he had gotten the lawyer’s letter of 23 June 2015 and he responded that his mother went to the lawyer. I pointed out he had just given evidence that no-one had contacted his lawyer on his behalf since he came to Australia, and he replied he had meant no-one in Australia. He confirmed that his mother had got the lawyer’s letter. I asked whether anyone-else had sent him documents, and he responded that all of the documents he had given as evidence had been obtained and sent by the mother. Later in the hearing he stated that his mother had approached and got all three documents from the lawyer, [Agency 1], and the [Shia Organisation 1].
At the end of the hearing the applicant’s agent submitted variously: his team had contacted the third parties and the applicant hadn’t mentioned this; while I had asked the applicant if anyone had contacted the lawyer, the applicant didn’t answer; the lawyer gave information to the mother who passed it on; he agreed it is easy to generate any document in Pakistan; the lawyer in Pakistan cannot write anything that is untrue; a few lawyers engage in such things such as making up information. However, the applicant’s answers had been that no-one in Australia had contacted the lawyer; and that his mother had approached the lawyer and the organisations and obtained all of the documents and sent them to him. I therefore do not accept the submission that the agent’s team had ever contacted the lawyer and find that the applicant’s mother had sourced, obtained and sent the documents to the applicant.
The agent suggested that to address my concerns, the applicant could seek to get a further statement from the lawyer. At hearing 1 the applicant was provided with 28 days to get and provide further information and evidence. The applicant subsequently provided further letters purportedly from the lawyer and the two organisations.
At hearing 2 he stated his father had gone to a lot of trouble to get the latest letters. When I pointed out he had claimed his father had fled Lahore, he responded that the father lived in a village near Hafazabad working as a labourer, and the father only visited Lahore. However, as discussed at hearing, his evidence that the father went around Lahore to source new letters, does not support his claim that years before the father had fled the family home and feared harm in Lahore. His evidence that he had readily tracked down the father and called the father to get the father to get the letters, raises credibility concerns with his claims that: years before he had lost all contact with the father who had changed phone number and left the family home and became homeless; and indeed he had lost all contact with every family member as they blamed him for the mother’s death and told him ‘you are dead to us’.
The lawyer in Lahore and lawyer’s letters
The applicant provided a letter dated 23 June 2015 said to be from [Law Firm 1]. I discussed at hearing 1 how educated Pakistanis including particularly lawyers generally have a good standard of written English and I pointed out the lawyer’s letter had quite poor English and this raised credibility concerns. The applicant responded that everyone in Pakistan has the same level of English. I pointed out that my search of the internet had failed to find any reference to the law firm/lawyer at the address. To respond to my concerns the representative sought further time to get evidence to support the lawyer’s genuineness, and on 16 July 2021 additional documents were provided: four letters purportedly from the lawyer dated 12 July 2021, with references CHA60, CHA61, CHA62 and CHA63. The applicant did not provide any evidence from an authoritative source concerning the lawyer and letters.
At hearing 2 I discussed my strong concerns with all of the lawyer’s letters. I pointed out that I had again recently searched the internet and was still unable to find any reference to the law firm, either by their name/s and address. The applicant responded that; the lawyer is genuine; I could send someone there to check; people in Pakistan are not well educated so maybe that’s why his English is poor; Pakistan does not have an internet connection, so they are not aware of most things. When I pointed out Pakistan’s internet does function, he responded there is no electricity in Pakistan and the internet is secondary to that. The applicant’s explanations are not persuasive.
My unsuccessful search of the internet for any mention of the lawyer’s firm at the given address in Lahore raises concerns, albeit I do not find it conclusive of whether the lawyer exists. However, significant errors in the letters raise strong credibility concerns:
·The letter dated 23 June 2015 has a particular style of letterhead that shows: [Law Firm 1]. However, the lawyer’s name is spelled differently in the letter: [Lawyer A] (below the signature); [Spelling variant] (at top of letter).
·The letters of 12 July 2021 have the same particular style of letterhead but now shows: [Law Firm 1 variant spelling]. As well, the lawyer’s name is spelled differently in the letter: [Lawyer A family name] (below the signature); [variant spelling of Lawyer A family name] (at top of letter); [third variant spelling of Lawyer A family name] (the name stamp). And the email address uses ‘[another variant]’ rather than ‘[the spelling of Lawyer A’s given name]’.
At hearing 2 I discussed these errors and concerns with the applicant. He responded that an assistant typed the letters and made the mistakes. I pointed out that in my discussion the significant errors had been in the lawyer/law firm’s name and in letterheads. I indicated I did not propose to phone the lawyer as my concerns were significant and go to their actual identity and I could not know who I was talking to. I acknowledge that lawyers in Lahore may have differing levels of English and that poor English may not mean documents are false. However, the letters purportedly from the lawyer are in English and not translations: the English expression in all of them is poor and ostensibly below the level of English expression of an educated lawyer in Lahore. In particular the errors or changes in the lawyer’s name, including in the same letter, are very significant; letterheads have changed spelling of his name over time; a name stamp contains a third name spelling; a letter has been signed with a signature block that differs from the letterhead; the email address is inconsistent with the lawyer’s name.
In sum, given my significant credibility concerns and in light of country information about the prevalence of false documents in Pakistan, I find that the letters are not from a lawyer in Lahore: the letters and their contents have been fabricated and are not genuine.
[Agency 1]
At hearing 1 I raised concerns with the letter from [Agency 1] dated 22 June 2015. During the hearing I pointed out that I was unable to find any reference to the organisation in an internet search. The applicant responded that he was not there and is not sure as his mother went to the organisation and got the document. At hearing 1 I pointed out that the name of the organisation seems to be an unlikely name for an NGO in Pakistan as its very poor English, and this raises credibility concerns. The applicant responded how could he deny it as his mother obtained it.
At hearing 2 I pointed out that I had again recently searched the internet and was still unable to find any reference to the organisation. My unsuccessful search of the internet for any mention of the organisation in Lahore raises concerns, albeit I do not find it conclusive of whether the organisation exists.
At hearing 2 I discussed the organisation’s letters dated 22 June 2015 and 6 July 2021. I pointed out the name of the organisation was changeable in each letter. The letter dated 22 June 2015 stated [Agency 1] in the letterhead and a stamp, but [Agency 1 name variant 2] in the signature block. Then the letters dated 6 July 2021 stated [Agency 1 name variant 1] in the letterhead, [Agency 1] in a stamp, and [Agency 1 name variant 3] in the signature block. I also discussed how the address was changeable in the letters dated 6 July 2021: [variations specified between the] (letterhead) [and] (stamp).
The applicant responded that officers would change over time and so their stamps would change. And maybe they changed address. I again pointed out that three versions of the name were given in the same letter, and the different addresses was given in the same letter. The applicant merely responded that his father had gone to a lot of trouble to get the latest letters.
In sum, the letters from the organisation are in English and not translations. The changeable name of the organisation in the same letter in the letterhead, stamp and signature block, raises credibility concerns. In the latest letter, the ostensible error in the address is in the actual letterhead, and this also raises credibility concerns.
As well, the applicant stated that his mother approached the organisation to get a letter to support the applicant’s application. At hearing 1 the applicant agreed that the mother went to the organisation and they gave her the letter dated 22 June 2015 based on what she told them. However, this is inconsistent with the letter which states in part that the applicant “came to us for help and we also tried to provide him legal help but all in vain” and “we also giving him suggestion that if he can leave Pakistan then immediately run away”. In his response the applicant did not claim, despite ample opportunity, that he had approached the organisation for help before he departed Pakistan. This causes me to have further credibility concerns with the organisation and the letters dated 22 June 2015 and 6 July 2021.
In sum, given my significant credibility concerns and in light of country information about the prevalence of false documents in Pakistan, I find that the letters and their contents have been fabricated and are not genuine.
[Shia Organisation 1]
At hearing 1 I discussed the letter from the organisation [Shia Organisation 1] dated 23 June 2015. The applicant stated that it is a big Shia organisation with offices throughout Pakistan although they use just one letterhead. During the hearing I pointed out that I was unable to find any reference to the organisation in an internet search. He merely responded that some people are illiterate and when he came here people did not know how to use youtube. At hearing 2 I pointed out that I had again recently searched the internet and was still unable to find any reference to this organisation. The applicant responded that they are on Facebook. My unsuccessful search of the internet for any mention of the organisation in Lahore and Pakistan raises concerns, albeit I do not find it conclusive of whether the organisation exists.
As discussed at hearing 1, I have credibility concerns with the contents of the letter dated 23 June 2015 (translated into English):
·The letter states in part that the applicant “is the [Official 1] of our organisation”. However, the applicant claims he had been [Official 1] just of his area in Lahore. When I queried why the letter didn’t say that he gave no particular explanation.
·As well, the letter states the applicant “is the [Official 1]” but as I pointed out he had not been in Pakistan since 2014. The applicant’s response that his mother had obtained the letter does not explain why the letter incorrectly stated he was the [Official 1] in the present tense and did not state when he had been [Official 1] of his area.
·The letter merely makes an assertion that the applicant would be “killed by any [group] of Sunny (sic) religion” with no supporting particulars.
The organisation’s letter dated 8 July 2021 is in English, and now states in part the applicant had been “an active member of [Shia Organisation 2] and also [Official 1] of [Location 1], Lahore”. The letter merely asserts that “when he returned to Pakistan then merely be convicted in false cases and murdered by [Sunni Organisation 1]” with no supporting particulars. As I pointed out at hearing, it is also very odd that the letter’s letterhead has an error in the address when it says “[variant of Location 1]” rather than ‘[Location 1]’. The applicant responded that they are on Facebook, but as I then discussed, that does not explain why there is an obvious error in the letterhead that is not repeated in the letter and signature block.
In sum, given my credibility concerns and in light of country information about the prevalence of false documents in Pakistan, I find that the letters and their contents have been fabricated and are not genuine.
Fourth, I have credibility concerns with elements of the applicant’s narrative, claims and evidence.
The March 2011 attack
In the application he made cursory claims that he would be killed in Pakistan, with no details. The applicant later claimed he was attacked in 2011. A submission of 19 February 2020 provided in the review states that:
In 2011 the applicant was with two colleagues who were painting the mosque gate. They were shot at by people on motorbikes. The applicant and his two colleagues were shot and became unconscious. This happened around noon. The applicant was shot in the head and still has small bullet fragments in his head. The applicant alleged that some sunny Muslim group is responsible for the attempt and the similar group made false cases against the applicant so that the applicant may be subject to mental torture.
To support the claim he provided a First Information Report (FIR) and translation that showed the date and time of the occurrence was [a day in] March 2011 at 6pm, and the date and time of the FIR was very soon after [in] March 2011 at 6:30pm.
To support the claim of injury to his head he provided a radiology report dated 6 February 2017 that stated in part there are [metallic] foreign bodies present in the soft tissues of the scalp and temporal region consistent with shrapnel, and no sign of previous head injury. At hearing he stated the fragments are painful, and when I queried why he hadn’t had the metallic fragments removed from his scalp since 2011 he merely responded that he did not have the money. At hearing 2 I pointed out that the radiology report that shows there are metallic fragments in his scalp does not show they are there for the reasons he claims.
At hearing 1 the applicant discussed the circumstances of the March 2011 occurrence: he stated he and two others had been painting the outside door of the mosque for a while and they were about to finish when the shooting started. I pointed out his description of painting seemed different to the FIR that stated ‘…I was going with my companion to [Mosque 1] and when I reached at the door of [Mosque 1]…’ The applicant then responded the painting was being done by a friend of his, and that the applicant was coming for a meeting and was just about to ask ‘how are you?’ as he was entering the [mosque] when the shooting started. When I pointed out he had just said that he and two friends had been painting a door for some time, the applicant responded that he had not been painting and he was mistaken.
In sum, at hearing the applicant’s description of the occurrence changed in significant details as I examined it. He did not claim, despite ample opportunity, that he had a poor memory of the occurrence, but rather, gave his account in a firm, straight-forward way. I consider that when I referred to the FIR and the different account in the FIR, he significantly changed his account to make it consistent with the statement in the FIR. His changeable account of the occurrence raises strong credibility concerns.
The June 2013 attack
A submission of 19 February 2020 provided in the review states that:
In 2013, the applicant received threatening messages asking the applicant to leave [Shia Organisation 1 name variant] or be killed.
[In June 2013] the applicant’s house was fired by Sunni Group, no one got hurts, the applicant attempted to register an FIR but the police station refused to register the FIR due to political pressure however applicant instead of giving up filed the petition to the [Court 1], Lahore Pakistan regarding the incident. The applicant exhibit a copy of the petition bearing [a number] and copy of the court directions have been provided in support of this claim.
To support the claim he provided: Statement by applicant to SHO Police Station [named in] Lahore dated [in] June 2013; Petition to [Court 2] 2013 (Applicant against police station as they refuse to register the case without justification); Court petition order ([Court 2]) dated [later in] June 2013 and announced 29 June 2013.

The statement discusses an occurrence [in] June 2013 when two vehicles with men came to the family home and fired at the house. The Court petition order dated [later in] June 2013 states the police submission in part:
The SHO concerned give his written statement that this is a religious matter and the both parties are habitual, they tried to involved each other in false and fabricated cases, so this incident according to my investigation is also false and fabricated, so no offence is made out and its FIR could not lodge according to law.
At hearing 1 I queried whether the Court petition order shows the applicant was in one group and the four Sunni men in another, and the police knew that they were making false claims against each other. The applicant responded the police did this to save their lives, and that he was not in a group but was just an ordinary person who needs help. When I queried whether he was saying that the men did not have an interest in him because he was a [Official 1] in a Shia organisation, he gave the odd response that he was just an ordinary person who had no interest in anyone else- he was just a poor man who goes to prayers and did good deeds.
Later in the hearing I raised credibility concerns with the speed with which the applicant’s petitions were dealt with by the courts. I pointed out that country information showed the Pakistan court system has been very slow. My comment referenced reports concerning Pakistan’s overwhelmed judicial and court system at around the period of the applicant’s claims:
With 3 million pending court cases in Pakistan to date, this huge backlog clearly indicates weakened criminal and civil justice system delivery mechanisms. Without more vigorous implementation of existing rules and procedures, say jurists, and extensive judicial reforms, the log jam is unlikely to be settled. … An overwhelming majority of pending court cases originate from Punjab: the Lahore High Court and its subordinate judiciary have 1,433,887 pending cases to date. And although this is an alarming scenario, it is next to impossible with the existing number of judges, prosecutors and courts that these cases are likely to be resolved in the future. Even a marginal reduction in these figures is impossible, say legal observers, unless substantial amendments are introduced to the Pakistan Penal Code, the civil procedure code, the criminal procedure code and the Evidence Act. (Report in Dawn, Overburdened legal institutions: the case for reform, 19 December 2016, [ judicial system is overburdened, and cases can take years to finalise. (DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 1 September 2017, at para 5.9, [>
Yet the documents provided by the applicant ostensibly show he made a statement to the police station on [the day in] June 2013, then subsequently a petition to the court against the police station on the grounds that the police refused to register his complaint, and the court made a decision just a few days later [in] June 2013. Similarly, documents provided by the applicant ostensibly show he made a petition to the [Court 3] dated 16 July 2014, and the court dismissed the petition within a week on 23 July 2014. The applicant’s response was merely that the Sunni organisation is very strong and can do that. At hearing I discussed how country information showed Sipah-e-Sahaba had been banned in Pakistan until the ban was revoked some years later in 2018. Despite high levels of corruption in Pakistan including in the police and courts, it is difficult to accept that the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba in both 2013 and 2014 identified the applicant’s lodgement of court petitions and then organised for the courts to make decisions within a few days. In sum, it is difficult to accept that, as shown by the court documents provided by the applicant, the Pakistan courts accepted, considered and resolved the applicant’s court petitions within a few days. I do not accept that corruption in the courts explains the ostensible extraordinary speed of the courts’ processes in those two matters. The court documents provided by the applicant raise credibility concerns.
His application to visit mother
At hearing the applicant discussed the whereabouts of his close family including his mother who had been critically ill and died in 2018. He discussed how he sought to travel to Pakistan to care for the dying mother. When I queried that he sought to return to Lahore to care for the mother, the applicant stated: she had been moved to [a named town], then the Gujrat, and then to Islamabad; the father did this just to change her mind as she kept calling the applicant. The representative commented this was to give the mother ‘false hope’. However, as I pointed out at hearing, it is difficult to accept that the mother, while critically ill, was moved from the family home and finally to distant Islamabad merely to give her hope that the applicant would return to Pakistan. The applicant’s responded that the father organised a special ambulance for her to travel between cities, and when I pointed out his evidence has been that the family was poor, he then stated that in fact an uncle took care of it. The applicant’s claims that the ill mother was moved to different locations and finally to Islamabad ostensibly so that she would think the applicant was going to return to Pakistan is far-fetched and unconvincing. His changeable claims about his family being quite poor, and then that the father organised a special ambulance to take the mother to Islamabad, and when I pointed out his earlier evidence about the poor family, that in fact an uncle organised the ambulance, raise credibility concerns. As well, I consider that the applicant’s proposed return to Pakistan to stay for a significant period does not support his claimed fear of harm in Pakistan.
The circumstances of his departure from Pakistan
At hearing 1 the applicant claimed he and his wife had been in hiding in Pakistan from the time he applied for the Australian student dependent visa in September 2013. At hearing 2 he claimed he had been moving from place to place since he was shot in 2011. His application shows he departed Pakistan a significant time later in November 2014.
His application was lodged on 18 June 2015 and he ostensibly hand wrote the information in the application and he did not indicate he received assistance to complete the Part C and indicated in Part B he did not receive any assistance in completing the Part B. An agent signed form 956 on 3 August 2015. However, in the application he stated at question 82 - that asked for all residential addresses lived in the last 30 years including temporary accommodation – he had lived at the same address in Lahore from birth to departure. At hearing 2 when I pointed out the inconsistent evidence, he responded that he stated just one address because in Pakistan they just put the home address as written on legal documents. But when I pointed out that was not what the application clearly asked for, he responded that the agent had told him to state the home address and the agent did not ask him to put in any other addresses. However, I consider the applicant’s changeable evidence about his residence before he departed Pakistan raises credibility concerns.
Additionally, the student dependent visa was granted in February 2014 but he only departed Pakistan nine months later in November 2014. At hearing he claimed the reason for the delay had been because the visa application had been lodged at a travel agency, and when one agent left the agency, they had not been notified of the visa grant by the other agent. He claimed when they (he and the wife) were notified, they departed 20-25 days later. However, I find unconvincing his explanation that they were not notified for over eight months that student visas had been granted merely because a travel agent had left the agency. I consider that the long delay from the visa grant to their departure shows that they did not depart Pakistan with any urgency, and this significant delay in leaving does not support his claimed fear of harm in Pakistan.
His claimed religious activities in Australia
In the applicant’s narrative, in Pakistan he had been closely involved with Shia religious activities, other Shias, his Shia Mosque, and he was [Official 1] of [Shia Organisation 1] in Lahore. He claims that his Shia observance and activities brought him to the adverse attention of a Sunni group who threatened and harmed him.
At hearing I explored the level of his commitment to the Shia religion since he departed Pakistan as a student dependent. However, when I asked about the applicant’s religious activities in Australia, he claimed he only attended mosque on Friday and he had no other participation in Shia activities in the community. He stated he attended [a named] mosque but did not know the address beyond stating it was in front of a train station. He did not know the name of the Imam/cleric who led prayers every week and he gave evolving answers as to why he did not know. He at first said he never paid attention to the cleric’s name, and then that it is not essential to know his name and it had not occurred to the applicant and friends to ask, and then that the cleric spoke another language.
He stated other than prayers, he did no other religious activities: on Shia religious days he and friends merely spent time together in their homes or visited the city. When I pointed out this was odd as he claimed he had been very active in Pakistan, he stated he keeps a low profile as he fears for his life. When I put to him it is difficult to accept that he feared for his life in Australia if he participated in the Shia community, he responded that friends had told him that he should not do the same things he did in Pakistan as it would put him in danger. When I put to him my concern that in Pakistan he claims to have been involved in the Shia community but in Australia he did not even attend Ashura processions, he responded that he would not put himself on display here because of social media, but rather celebrates out of view. I then queried whether he could show his interest in the Shia religion in other ways. The applicant stated he had a mobile and I asked the applicant if he posted Shia religious things on social media. He responded that he had never done that as friends told him not to.
I acknowledge that a person’s commitment to, and activities in a religion may vary over time and place. However, in the applicant’s narrative he had been heavily involved in the Shia community in Lahore and in particular had become [Official 1] in a Shia organisation. It is difficult to accept, therefore, that in Australia where he seeks Australia’s protection and where it is safe to do so, he has had no involvement at all in the Shia community, beyond attending mosque and socialising with his friends. It is difficult to accept that he undertakes no public religious activities in Australia because he fears to do so or because friends have told him it is dangerous or because he fears people in Pakistan would find out. It is difficult to accept that the applicant attends weekly at the mosque but cannot name the cleric who leads the weekly prayers, and his evolving explanation why, raises credibility concerns.
In sum, in light of his claimed strong and active participation in the Shia community in Pakistan, his scant participation in the Shia community in Australia raises credibility concerns. He seeks Australia’s protection, and it is safe for Shias to participate in religious activities publicly in Australia, and so his explanations that he has been warned to not become publicly involved and he fears to do so in Australia, raise credibility concerns. That he cannot name the local cleric and his evolving explanation why, raise credibility concerns.
His claimed fear of return to Pakistan
After lodging the application he provided a Pakistan lawyer’s letter dated 23 June 2015 that stated in part the applicant had been involved in some ‘false story cases through police’ and he is a proclaimed offender in those false cases. However, at hearing 1 when I asked what his understanding is of what has happened to the Court matters, he responded broadly that “I can’t tell you” and that since he came to Australia he does not know. At hearing 1 he did not claim that he had made any attempts to find out the end result of the claimed Court matters.
It is difficult to accept that after receiving the documents from Pakistan sent to him by his mother in 2015 in order to support his claims, over the next six years to June 2021 he made no attempts and ostensibly showed no interest in finding out what the end result of the claimed Court matters had been. Indeed, in that long period he had sought a Bridging B visa in August 2018 in order to travel to Pakistan to be with his dying mother.
The applicant claims that he had become estranged from his family because of the mother’s death. But he was nonetheless able to organise for his father to gather fresh documents to provide to the Tribunal after hearing 1. He also claims that he had had a Lahore lawyer who had acted for him in the Court matters and who ostensibly would have been able to provide advice in that period.
In sum, the applicant’s lack of knowledge of- and lack of any attempts to find out- the actual results and findings of the Court matters in Lahore, despite the false criminal cases being a part of his claims to fear to return to Pakistan, raise credibility concerns.
Conclusion
In my foregoing discussion I have discussed the material before the Tribunal including the applicant’s narrative, claims, evidence, documents including medical he has provided to support his claims, and submissions. I discussed my concerns with the material before the Tribunal. My foregoing credibility concerns with much of the applicant’s claims, narrative and evidence lead me to find the applicant is not a witness of truth and that he has fabricated his narrative and claims in the application and in the review for the purposes of getting a positive migration outcome. I carefully considered the documents from Pakistan that he provided to support his claims. The documents had been obtained by the applicant’s mother and later, father in Lahore. However, my very strong concerns with those documents and the applicant’s evidence about the documents and his narrative, and in light of the country information that false and fraudulent documents including court and legal documents are common and easily obtained in Pakistan, lead me to find that all of the documents are fraudulent and/or are false. I give no weight to any of the information in the documents including from:
·His lawyer in Lahore
·An organisation [Shia Organisation 1]
·The NGO [Agency 1]
·Legal documents that include First Information reports (FIRs), warrants, court orders and notices, petitions
In my foregoing discussion I discussed how I provided the applicant time after my first hearing to provide further information and documents to support his claims, including information and documents from Pakistan. At hearing 2 my credibility concerns were so great that I decided not to phone Pakistan to discuss the information and documents from Pakistan as I would be unable to know the actual identity of the person I was talking to, and such evidence would not have addressed my strong credibility concerns with the documents and the information in the documents.
The applicant claims that in Pakistan he was active in promoting and worshiping in the Shia religion. However, my foregoing credibility discussion about his religious adherence and claimed activities in Pakistan, and my findings that he is not a witness of truth and that he has fabricated his narrative and claims in the application and in the review, lead me to reject his claim that he had been closely involved with Shia religious activities, other Shias, his Shia Mosque, and he was [an Official 1] of [Shia Organisation 1] in Lahore. I do not accept that his Shia observance and activities brought him to the adverse attention of Sipah-e-Sahaba and its members who threatened and harmed him. In my foregoing discussion I discussed my credibility concerns with his evidence at hearing about his religious practice and scant religious activities in Australia, and this reinforces my findings that he had not been closely involved with Shia religious and/or political activities in Lahore before he departed as he claims.
The applicant claims that in Pakistan his family were threatened and harmed including because of his activities in promoting and worshiping in the Shia religion. However, my foregoing credibility discussion about his religious adherence and claimed activities in Pakistan, and my findings that he is not a witness of truth and that he has fabricated his narrative and claims in the application and in the review, lead me to reject his claim that his family members including his mother were threatened and harmed by Sunni activists or any agents. I do not accept that any of his parents, family or relatives were threatened and harmed because of the applicant and his activities in promoting and worshiping in the Shia religion.
In sum, in light of my foregoing credibility concerns that include credibility concerns with significant elements of the applicant’s claims and narrative, I do not accept that:
·He had been active in promoting the Shia religion in Pakistan
·He had been an active member of [Shia Organisation 1], Lahore and held the office of the [Official 1] for a local area of this organisation
·Members of Sipah-e-Sahaba had threatened and harmed him, and attempted to harm him, in Lahore
·In 2011 he was shot by men on motorbikes
·[In] June 2013 several men from Sipah-e-Sahaba shot at his house (he sometimes places this incident in March 2014)
·In 2013 he received a message telling him to leave the Shia religion or be killed
·He was in hiding for years before he departed Pakistan
·False criminal cases had been made against him in Lahore by Sunni extremists
·False criminal cases are pending against him and he has been declared an absconder which means he would be surely convicted and may be persecuted by religious parties
·Members of Sipah-e-Sahaba and/or other Sunni groups or their agents would harm him if he returned to Pakistan
·The police did not action his complaints and First Information Reports and so he does not trust them
·The courts corruptly did not action the court actions he initiated
·His mother had been harmed by a religious group; his father and other family members had been threatened and harmed and had left Lahore
·When he last departed Pakistan he hid his identity when he travelled to the airport
Conclusion
I now assess whether, on the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the applicant’s future conduct if he returns to Pakistan, and relevant country information, the applicant has a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future. Having considered the claims and evidence I find that the applicant, a Pakistan national, is a mature man who entered Australia with a student dependent visa. He entered with a woman who was ostensibly his wife and they have since divorced in Australia.
His travel to Pakistan as a returnee from the West
I am satisfied the applicant would be able to travel to and enter Pakistan without difficulty. As discussed at hearing, he is a Pakistan national who last departed Pakistan legally with a genuine Pakistan passport, and the Tribunal sighted a copy of this Pakistan passport pages. In Australia he sought and was issued a new Pakistan passport [in] 2017 and this was valid to [2022]. I am satisfied that he would have no difficulties in getting a fresh Pakistan passport.

He would enter Pakistan as a Pakistan national who had last departed that country legally and in the usual way, and as a man who had lived away for a number of years but was now returning on a Pakistan passport. The applicant states that he has not committed crimes in Pakistan or Australia. I pointed out at hearing that if he returned, he would likely return to Lahore in Punjab where he previously lived and had relatives. As discussed at hearing, the DFAT report Pakistan shows that in such circumstances he would be typically processed like any other citizen returning to Pakistan, or as an involuntary returnee he would typically be questioned upon arrival to ascertain whether he left the country illegally, or is wanted for crimes in Pakistan, or had committed any offences while abroad. Those who left Pakistan on valid travel documentation and have not committed any other crimes are typically released within a few hours.
Having considered his personal circumstances and in light of country information I find that when he enters Pakistan there is not a real chance he will face serious harm, or for complementary protection purposes a real risk of significant harm, because of being a returnee (whether or not involuntary) who had attempted to migrate and/or because he was a failed asylum seeker and had lived in Australia- a western country.
Punjab province
In Lahore the applicant, a Pakistan national, would be viewed as a mature, divorced Muslim Shia man, born and raised in Lahore, who had spent years in the West. As discussed at hearing, country information shows that the applicant’s residence outside of Pakistan and in Australia, and his attempt to get residence by applying for Australia’s protection, would not cause him difficulties on return to Pakistan. My comments were inclusive of the DFAT report Pakistan[4] that states while DFAT notes societal or official discrimination or violence can still occur due to the reason they attempted to migrate, or because of behaviour or opinions they displayed while living abroad, DFAT assesses that returnees to Pakistan do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination purely as a result of their attempt to migrate, or purely because they have lived in a Western country. Indeed, the applicant would return to Lahore which is widely considered the most cosmopolitan city in Pakistan. The DFAT report Pakistan[5] discusses Shia in Pakistan and notes that an estimated 10-20% of the Pakistan population are Shia. There are significant Shia communities in Lahore, as well as Karachi, Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Shia are generally able to establish places of worship and practise their religion without overt state interference. They are well represented in parliament and regularly contest elections for mainstream political parties.
[4] At 5.28 to 5.31
[5] At 3.55 to 3.61
As discussed at hearing, country information shows that sectarian violence although ongoing in Pakistan has broadly decreased in recent years and is low in Punjab province in recent years. DFAT discusses the sectarian violence targeting Shia individuals, places of worship, shrines and religious schools, and how Shia throughout Pakistan continue to face a threat from sectarian terrorist groups such as the TTP, LeJ and IS.
As discussed at hearing, DFAT broadly assesses that Shia in Pakistan face a moderate risk of sectarian violence, although the situation has improved considerably in recent years, and they face a moderate risk of societal discrimination in the form of anti-Shia protests and community violence. DFAT states that the frequency of these attacks has steadily declined since 2013. Terrorist attacks targeting Shia killed five and injured 14 in 2020 (not including attacks targeting Hazaras), compared with 32 deaths in 2019 and 471 deaths in 2013. This is a result of the overall improvement in the security situation in Pakistan, as well as increased security provided by the Pakistani police for Shia places of worship and processions. The CRSS Annual Security Report 2020 discusses casualties of terror attacks and counter-terror operations in Punjab province in 2020 and states in part[6]:
[6] [ Pp25-26
Casualties from terror attacks and counter-terror operations in Punjab
Punjab province had a unique security situation compared to all other provinces. Not only were the total fatalities from violence lowest in Punjab, the outlaws suffered most of the fatalities. The lowest number of victims of violence was security personnel – an ideal security situation for the common people and commercial entrepreneurs.
A shift in violence was also observed in Punjab. Rawalpindi replaced Lahore as the district with highest fatalities in the province, though the number of victims was lower than 2019.
The report states that Lahore had four fatalities and no injuries in 2020, in the context of 40 fatalities and 64 injuries in all of Punjab province. Further, the CRSS Annual Security Report 2020 discusses sectarian violence in Pakistan in 2020 and states in part[7]:
[7] Pp28-30
Sectarian violence assumed new formations and dimensions this year and targeted several religious communities. People belonging to Sunni community - for the first time in last several years - became the highest victims of sectarian violence this year. Even youngsters and close relatives of the victims took the law into their hands by resorting to acts of violence on religious grounds. While all forms of violence declined this year, sectarian violence went up by 25%.

100. The report states that of 55 fatalities from sectarian violence in Pakistan in 2020, seven were Shia (39 were Sunni); and no Shia injuries (77 were Sunni) from a total of 83. The report listed that in Punjab province in 2020 there had been no Shia fatalities from sectarian violence.
101. In response the applicant stated that he agreed things are getting better a bit although turmoil and division over religion can be created, and he referred to the TTP and the change of government. He also referred to his mother being injured in a home invasion, which I do not accept happened.
102. In sum, I do not accept that in Lahore, Pakistan now and in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant faces harm from Sipah-e-Sahaba and their activists and/or the activists that he named. I find there is not a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution (or for complementary protection purposes a real risk of significant harm) to him now and in the reasonably foreseeable future in residing in Lahore from: Sipah-e-Sahaba; Sunni activists; anti-Shia and other political party activists; militants including the Taliban; Pakistan authorities including the police; or from any other agents or the general community. I find there is not a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution (or for complementary protection purposes a real risk of significant harm) to him now and in the reasonably foreseeable future in residing in Lahore, for the reasons he claims, either when considered individually or cumulatively, or for any reason.
103. I find there is not a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution to him now and in the reasonably foreseeable future in residing in Lahore, for any other of the s5J(1) reasons either when looked at individually or cumulatively. I conclude the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Pakistan and to Lahore. I conclude there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm in Lahore.
104. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that should he return to Pakistan he has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons enumerated in s.5J(1). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
105. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan there would be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
106. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
decision
107. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
C. Packer
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.
…

IRB - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Pakistan: Prevalence and availability of fraudulent documents, including affidavits and court documents (2017-January 2020), [

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law
Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Natural Justice
Jurisdiction
Standing
Statutory Construction

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

2002251 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 3950

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

[2022] AATA 3950

19 September 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Standing

Statutory Construction