2007159 (Refugee)

This case concerned a protection visa application made by a Pakistani national born in Australia. The applicant claimed that if returned to Pakistan, she would face persecution due to her parents' marriage, which was conducted without the approval of her maternal uncles. These uncles, who had arranged for the applicant's mother to marry her cousin, allegedly had strong connections to government authorities and the Pakistan army, raising fears of the applicant and her family being unable to find protection and potentially facing harm, including separation from parents, honour killings, kidnapping, forced divorce, and acid attacks.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution in Pakistan for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, and if not, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malaysia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The court was required to consider the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines, as well as country information assessments.

The court noted that if the refugee criterion was not met, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) could still allow for the grant of a visa. This criterion requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to a receiving country, there is a real risk of significant harm. The court had regard to a previous Federal Court decision which found that a prior Tribunal had erred by not considering the real risk of significant harm, particularly in light of findings regarding a substantial risk of forced marriage. The applicant's father provided evidence confirming the circumstances of his marriage and the threats received, as well as details about his family in Pakistan and their connections.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the country information and the testimony of the applicant's father, and concluded that the applicant had not established a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return to Pakistan.