2004439 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Pakistani national. The applicant claimed to fear harm from the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) and Pakistani authorities, specifically the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Internal Accountability Bureau (IAB), due to his work for an international non-government organisation and alleged links between these authorities and the TTP. The applicant also raised claims of a westernised lifestyle, mental health issues, and a late claim of kidnap and sexual assault by army or security personnel. A significant issue was the applicant's prior asylum claim in a third country under a false identity, which was refused and led to his removal to his claimed country of origin.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, considering his claims of persecution based on ethnicity, religion, and imputed political opinion. This involved assessing the credibility and consistency of his evidence, including the late disclosure of certain claims and the circumstances surrounding his previous asylum application. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevance of a non-disclosure certificate on file, which related to allegations of the applicant using fake documents in a previous claim, and whether this information should be given any weight. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to assess the risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion, taking into account current country information regarding Pakistan.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's previous asylum application in a third country involved the use of a false identity, he was nevertheless a national of Pakistan and that Pakistan was his receiving country. The Tribunal noted that information subject to a non-disclosure certificate was lacking in specific detail and therefore would not be given any weight. Despite the applicant's previous inconsistent claims and the unhindered nature of his departure from Pakistan, the Tribunal considered post-hearing psychological evidence indicating his mental health was consistent with past trauma. It also acknowledged country information suggesting potential adverse profiling and a real chance of persecution.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that the decision under review should be remitted.