2011739 (Refugee)

Case [2023] AATA 4400

2011739 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4400 (3 October 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Karyn Anderson

CASE NUMBER:  2011739

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:3 October 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 03 October 2023 at 2:15pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – race – Pashtun – political opinion – opposition to the Pakistan Taliban – Village Defence Committee informant – Awami National Party – particular social group – physical disability – physical assault – killing of relatives – Taliban resurgence – effective state protection – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

FCS17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 68

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

  1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 July 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

  2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan applied for the visa on 14 June 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa.

  3. The applicant provided evidence[1] of being in constant pain and discomfort and current use of a wheelchair and assistance from a support person for mobility.   Post written application[2] from the applicant the Tribunal resolved the review application on the papers.

    [1] See page 1 of covering letter and relevant medical advice attachments to legal submissions in Doc ID [number]

    [2] See page 1 of covering letter to legal submissions in Doc ID [number]

  4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

  5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

  6. 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.

  7. A person is a refugee if, in…

Continue reading 2011739 (Refugee)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
2011739 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4400
Case
[2023] AATA 4400
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, a Sunni Pashtun from the Swat District of Pakistan, claimed to fear persecution due to his past involvement with the Village Defence Committee (VDC) and his membership in the Awami National Party (ANP), both of which are opposed to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The applicant also cited his physical disability as a factor that would make him easily identifiable and a target for persecution.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant could reasonably relocate within Pakistan to avoid such persecution, as per section 36(2B)(a), and whether effective protection measures were available to him in Pakistan, as per section 5LA.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's activities as a VDC informant and ANP activist placed him at a real risk of persecution from the TTP, particularly in light of the resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It found that his membership in particular social groups, including those associated with the ANP and those who have opposed the Taliban, combined with his physical disability, meant he would be individually targeted. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant could relocate to a safe area within Pakistan, noting his lack of support networks and the pervasive nature of the threat. Furthermore, it concluded that the Pakistani authorities would likely be unable to provide effective protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies this criterion.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

This report from CTC Sentinel located within the Combatting Terrorism Center at WestPoint provides a comprehensive and current status report on The Tehrik-i-Taliban after the Taliban’s Afghanistan takeover. It sets out the following:·With Pakistan engulfed by political and economic turmoil, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is again growing as a threat.·With a solid organizational foundation and its eyes set on the Pakistani state, the TTP appears ready to follow in the footsteps of the Afghan Taliban and take control of territory in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The Taliban victory in Afghanistan has emboldened and strengthened the TTP. With the Taliban in control of Afghanistan and sympathetic to the TTP, the TTP now enjoys a level of ‘strategic depth’ that is arguably unparalleled in its history.·The TTP has obtained new more sophisticated weapons and relocated fighter from Afghanistan to Pakistan and is now turning its focus back to its war against the Pakistani state. Over the past two years, the group has gone through a series of mergers, strengthened its media and operational activities, moved away from the indiscriminate targeting of civilians in suicide attacks, implemented a range of new internal policies centralizing its organizational structure, and settled on a localized strategy.·In sum the Taliban victory in Afghanistan has emboldened and strengthened the TTP. With the Taliban in control of Afghanistan and sympathetic to the TTP, and the group no longer having to fear operations against it there, the TTP now enjoys a level of ‘strategic depth’ that is arguably unparalleled in its history.·In the aftermath of the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan, four key developments have defined the TTP’s ensuing resurgence: a series of mergers, the adoption of a centralized organizational structure emulating the Afghan Taliban insurgency, growing operational activity, and a sharp strengthening in media operations.·The TTP’s ascendant trajectory suggests that the current leader, Mufti Noor Wali Mehsud, appears to have been successful in defining and implementing a new strategy based on the group’s internal reform process, which was integral to its survival.·It became clear in the negotiations with the government in 2022 that the group has limited its immediate objective to territorially controlling the tribal belt adjacent to Afghanistan. For now, this indicates that the TTP has placed limits on its insurgency in the realization that an Afghan Taliban-style victory in Pakistan is currently an unrealistic goal[61]. [61] CTC Sentinel May 2023 Volume 16, Issue 5 pages 1 to 10Evidence, Findings, Analysis and Conclusions The Tribunal finds as follows: The applicant is [an age]-year old Sunni Pashtun, single male, born and raised in the village of [Village 1], [Town 1], Swat District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KBK) Province, Pakistan. His immediate and extended family members are members of the Awami National Party (ANP). His immediate and extended family members continue to reside in [Village 1] village to date. ·During his period of residence in [Village 1] village he was an activist member of the ANP generally involved in campaign, recruitment and educational duties. Whilst he did not occupy formal positions of leadership in the ANP he played a critical role of recruitment and education of younger village people. This activity is likely to have been observed by Taliban supporters in his village and reported to more senior elements of the TTP.·The applicant spent lengthy periods of his adult life living in his home village and his absences from the village were minimal. During his lengthy periods of residence in his home village he played a role as activist, organiser, leader and advisor in his local VDC. This activity was dangerous and involved continuing engagement with the Pakistani armed forces. ·It is likely the advice he provided to the Pakistani armed forces directly resulted in the deaths of several if not many Taliban supporters and activists in his home village. These VDC activities are most likely to have drawn the attention of the Taliban.·The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant’s membership of various particular social groups at risk in Pakistan has been established. He maintains a relatively high profile as an army informant, at least at local village level, for his actions which caused the arrest of numerous Taliban members. ·The applicant as a person with visible disabilities is easily distinguishable for targeted persecution and discrimination across Pakistan.·The country information set out above in support of the applicant’s claims paints a picture of a chaotic and deteriorating security situation in KP Province Pakistan amidst a dominant and ongoing Taliban resurgence. The dangers for those known or perceived as Taliban opponents is clear. ·Even though the Taliban has indicated it wishes to concentrate and limit its terrorist activities against police stations, police personnel and security personnel in KP Province and closer to the Afghanistan border more generally it is abundantly clear there is an ongoing pattern of non-police and or non-security attacks in KP province. These attacks usually occur in public rallies or large public gatherings and appear to be indiscriminate and intended to oppress the wider population who may be active in or supporters of the ANP.·The Taliban’s influence extends throughout Pakistan as do the security risks. ·The Tribunal is inclined to the view the applicant could re-locate to a region of Pakistan where he would not face these threat. ·In that circumstance he would face other threats to his life and it would be clearly unreasonable for the applicant to access those areas, due to his disability and the discrimination he would face for his health conditions, as well as his ethnicity.·The Tribunal is of the view the applicant lacks necessary critical support networks elsewhere in Pakistan and would face the overwhelming likelihood of being unable to subsist if he were required to relocate.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).DECISION The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.Mark BishopSenior MemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (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 familyFor 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 familyFor 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.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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.Geographic and Demographic Matters Tribunal researches disclose the following:·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'.·All four provinces have their own elected provincial assemblies and governments. There are 170 districts in Pakistan. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is divided into 7 Divisions and 39 districts inclusive of the applicant’s District of Swat. [Village 1], Swat·The applicant comes from [Village 1], in the Swat District of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in Pakistan. [Village 1] is considered a historical town in the Swat District with a population of approximately [amount]. The main demographic of people in [Village 1] are Pashtuns. ·[Village 1] is situated in the mountains about [distance] from [two named towns]. It is approximately [distance] from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, and approximately [distance] from the KPK capital of Peshawar. Swat Valley·The Swat valley is located in the Swat District Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. At the time of the 2017 census the district had a population of 2,308,624, of which 1,171,947 were males and 1,136,545 females. Rural population was 1,612,803 (69.86%) while the urban population was 695,821 (30.14%). ·Swat is mostly inhabited by Pashtuns who make up 90.78% of the population. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCEApplicant’s Claims for Protection (Part 4 of Decision Record) The delegate’s decision included a summary of claims from the applicant’s PV application as follows:·The applicant is [an age]-year old Sunni Pashtun, single male, born and raised in the village of [Village 1], [Town 1], Swat District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KBK) Province, Pakistan. His father is a retired [occupation 1] and one of his brothers works as [an occupation 1] for a [Country 1] based [business 1]. His family owns and cultivates 3 hectares of land in [Village 1] and employs farm workers. His immediate and extended family members are members of the Awami National Party (ANP). His immediate and extended family members continue to reside in [Village 1], village to date. ·He had completed [level] of education in [specified year]. In [year], he was admitted in the [Course 1] at [a named] College, in [Town 1] but could not continue his studies due to security situation. In 2011 he had completed a 6 month [occupation 1] course ([between specified dates]) at [College 1] in Lahore. In 2014, he joined the [Employer 1], based in Karachi and had been employed with the company on a yearly contract basis. Between 2014 and 2015, he travelled to [specified countries]. ·He had joined the Pakthun Student Federation (PSF), a student branch of Awami National Party (ANP), actively promoting education and opposing the Taliban.·He attended a meeting in his village [in] September 2009, in order to pledge the full support for the Army in eradicating the militants from Swat. He was appointed as the head of the Village Defence Committee (VDC) in [Village 1]. He had patrolled his village at night with five other members from 8 pm until 8 am, two days a week. He had also prepared patrol rosters for the area. The local VDC consisted of 12-13 members in total with one representative from each street. There were [number] houses in his street, and he identified 11 Taliban houses, which resulted in the arrest of Taliban members by the Army.·He was shot in Karachi in May 2012, whilst going to a bazaar with his [uncle], by two unidentified persons on a motor bike. Whilst his uncle was killed in the ambush, he managed to escape. The matter was widely reported in local papers.·He went to [Country 2] as [an occupation 1] for six months in 2014. He returned to his village in Swat in March 2015.·He received a threat letter from the Tehrek-e-Taliban upon his return in March 2015, warning him that they would punish him for helping the Army.·He was beaten with sticks by some masked people in April 2015. He was brought home unconscious by the villagers and taken to a local doctor who referred him to undertake an MRI, which showed that his lower back has been damaged as a result of the beating.·His [Uncle A], a VDC and ANP member, was killed in May 2016 in [a named village] in Swat.·He received a second threat letter from the Taliban in October 2017, warning him that he would be made disabled for the rest of his life.·He received the second threat letter; he went to Karachi and applied for [an occupation 1] deployment. He was deployed on [an overseas assignment] in February 2018. He flew from [a specified] Airport to [Country 3] and then commenced [travel] via [Country 1] to Australia, arriving at [Adelaide] [in] April 2018.·He fears being targeted by the Taliban militants still active in Pakistan, as there is no safe place throughout Pakistan for him to relocate.·He fears that the authorities, including the security forces and the police would not be able to provide any protection, as he had previously reported his beating incident in 2015 to both the police and the army personnel, yet they did not provide any assistance.Post Interview SubmissionThe applicant provided a Post Interview Submission on 3 July 2020, which as summarised by the delegate stated: ·He worked as [an occupation 1] from September 2014 until April 2018, and that he was registered with [Employer 1] in Karachi as [an occupation 1], doing [specified] duties. He was referred to [a business 1], called [Business 1] for the first job and then to a [different] company for his second and last job.·He did not [specifically leave his assignment], he was taken to a hospital in Adelaide with permission of the [manager] and then using that opportunity he escaped and sought protection.·He was chosen in 2009 as a Head of VDC (Village Defence Committee) in his locality because he was educated and outspoken.·He escaped near death beating at the hands of the extremists, and he would still be targeted and killed by the Taliban on return. He has lost [two] uncles.·Relocation within Pakistan is not feasible as the militants, would be able to locate him anywhere. Having no immediate familial or other support networks in other cities, he would not be able to subsist, given extremely low employment prospects, limited access to public services, difficulties finding shelter and having no or limited access to adequate health services, required for his treatment.·The Psychological Report dated [in] July 2020, in summary, states that the applicant is showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression, relating to the ongoing danger in Pakistan and the Taliban’s intent to kill him. He requires access to ongoing trauma counselling, in order to be given the opportunity to further process his experiences upon his daily functioning. Without such, it is probable that his mental health would deteriorate significantly.·The letter of support from his current GP at [Medical Centre 1] in Victoria, and a letter from an Orthopaedic Surgeon at [a named] Hospital in Melbourne, refer to the applicant’s treatment of epidural steroids, epidural injections, the physiotherapy, and hydrotherapy.Delegate’s Findings of Fact (Part 5 of Decision Record)The delegate made the following findings of fact in the decision record :·The delegate accepted that:·He is a Pashtun, Sunni Muslim born and raised in [Village 1], [Town 1], Swat District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KBK) Province, Pakistan.·He was registered with [Employer 1], based in Karachi and consistently worked [on assignments] from 2014 until 2018.·He [left an assignment] in [Adelaide], SA [in] April 2018·He joined a Village Defence Committee (VDC) in September 2009 in [Village 1], [Town 1] Swat District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KBK) Province, Pakistan.·He is showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression, and he suffers from chronic back pain. The delegate did not accept that: ·the applicant has an adverse personal profile of interest with anyone in Pakistan·the applicant was individually and specifically targeted by the Taliban or any other extremist group in Pakistan·the applicant fled Pakistan due to direct threats to him·the applicant’s uncles killing in Pakistan had any relation to the applicant or his circumstancesEvidence provided to dateThe applicant provided the following evidence to the Department:·A copy of his Pakistani Passport ·A copy of his Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC) ·Statement of Claims ·Post Interview Submission dated 2 July 2020 ·Psychological Report by [a named agency] dated [in] July 2020 ·VDC Membership Card ·ANP Membership Card ·Applicant Security Pass ·Psychological Report by [a named] Psychologist dated 18 June 2019 ·Referral letter from [a named] Physiotherapist dated 25 June 2019 ·Support letter from [a named] VDC Member ·Support letter from [name] (President of [Village 1] VDC) dated 9 July 2019 ·Support letter from [a named member] (ANP, Swat) dated 2 August 2019 ·Support letter from [name] (ex-MPA, ANP Swat) dated 4 March 2019 ·Support letter from [name] (resident of [Village 1]) ·Support letter from [name] (resident of [Village 1]) ·Support letter from [name] (applicant’s father) ·Support letter from [name] (applicant’s mother) ·Applicant’s Patient History Report between 1/10/2018 and 28/5/2020 ·Evidence of applicant’s medical treatment in Swat ·English translations of newspaper articles about recent killings of the VDC members in Pakistan ·First Information Report dated 31 May 2016 ·First Information Report dated 16 May 2012 ·National Identity Card of [Person A] ·Police Report and translation dated [in] May 2012 ·Letter from [a named] Orthopaedic Surgeon dated 3 June 2020 ·Results of applicant’s CT Scan dated [in] February 2019 ·Support letter by [Doctor A] (GP) Protection Visa Interview