2011902 (Refugee) - [2024] AATA 3973

2011902 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3973 (4 September 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Besmellah Rezaee (MARN: 1281396)
CASE NUMBER: 2011902

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Pakistan
MEMBER:Katherine Harvey
DATE:4 September 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 04 September 2024 at 12:14pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion – Shi’a – race – Tajik – threats from terrorist groups – fear of killing – threats from former wife’s family – honour killing – remarriage – separation from Australian citizen family – mental health issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2
SZRSN v MAIC [2013] FCA 751
SZTAL v MIBP; SZTGM v MIBP (2017) 262 CLR 362
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 7 July 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Pakistan), arrived in Australia travelling on a Pakistani passport as the holder of a visitor visa [in] November 2017.
He applied for a protection visa on 16 January 2018.
On 7 July 2020, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa and the applicant sought a review of that decision on 21 July 2020.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 July and 17 August 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Wife A], the applicant’s Australian citizen wife. The hearings were conducted, with the assistance of an interpreter, in the Urdu and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review and his registered migration agent attended the hearings.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded the decision under review should be affirmed.
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 (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.
Section…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2011902 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2011902 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3973
Case: [2024] AATA 3973
Decision Date: 4 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a Tajik Shi’a Muslim from Quetta, Pakistan, sought a protection visa. He claimed to fear persecution due to his religious and ethnic background, citing threats from terrorist groups like Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, anti-Shi’a sentiment, and a specific incident where he and his wife were stopped and questioned by armed men. The applicant also raised concerns about societal discrimination and the potential for honour killings from his former wife's family. The decision reviewed by the Tribunal was the refusal to grant this protection visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were 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 based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the available country information, including reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the applicant's claims against the legal thresholds for refugee status and complementary protection. It found that while the applicant had experienced threats and discrimination, these did not rise to the level of a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. Specifically, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a low level of risk of random or targeted attacks on Shi’as in Quetta, nor did it accept that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm from societal discrimination. The Tribunal also considered and dismissed the relevance of certain country information, such as Smartraveller advice intended for Australian travellers, as the applicant was a Pakistani national. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) and was not satisfied of substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm if returned to Pakistan, thus not meeting the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

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

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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The current country information report prepared by DFAT is the ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’ dated 25 January 2022 (DFAT report).CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCESummary of claims In his application for protection, the applicant set out the following claims. · He is a Tajik (Kandahari) and Shi’a Muslim born in Quetta, he has [number] siblings and a wife, who is from Karachi and is a Tajik (Kandahari) Shi’a.· His father was an [occupation 1] in a [business 1] in [a location], until [a named] office opposite was attacked and there was a huge blast, which marked the end of his father’s work there. · He worked as [an occupation 2] for eight years. · When the situation for Shi’as started to turn genocidal it immensely affected his family. His [specified family members] were threatened by a [neighbour] and sought protection in Australia in 2012. · Quetta is home to around 800,000 Shi’as. In 2001, terrorist groups such as the Taliban, Lashkar-iJhangvi (LeJ) and Sepah Sahaba started the systematic targeting and killing of Shi’as and 3000 Shi’as have been killed and more than 3000 permanently incapacitated in the last decade. Shi’as have been warned their settlements in Hazara Town and on Alamdar Road will be transformed into graveyards if they don’t leave Pakistan where they are regarded as infidels. · He left Pakistan because his life was in danger from the terrorist groups, their associates and agents. He grew up wanting a peaceful life but despite making good money and having property and assets, he did not find peace in Pakistan. Everywhere they went, they feared being targeted and every day he left for work he did not know if he would return home in the evening. · [In] September 2017, he was driving to Karachi with his wife for his brother-in-law’s engagement when they were stopped in [Town 1], about [distance] from Quetta, by some armed men whose faces were covered. The men spoke Baluchi and demanded their national identity cards (NICs) and then questioned why his name included ‘[name]’ and his wife’s included ‘[name]’, which are both [Shi’a names]. His command of Baluchi and Pashto saved their lives as he told them they were not Shi’as but Pashtuns. The commander took photos of their NICs and said that they would do some checks. They threatened that if he reported them to the police they would shoot him dead anywhere in Pakistan as they know where he lives and works. · When they reached Karachi, they told his father-in-law about the incident and he recommended selling the car, and within the week they returned to Quetta by air. Everyone in Karachi told them to report the incident when they got back to Quetta so that the police could do something and prevent potential loss of life. When he returned to Quetta, he lodged a first instance report (FIR) as he feared that they would come after him and he wanted the police to prevent it. He did not go back to work after the incident as he was too fearful. · At his workplace on a number of occasions Sunni customers abused him and urged him to convert.· A Sunni Madrasa has been established next door to his home and clerics preach anti-Shi’a sermons. His father transferred the certificate of title to him because his father was constantly approached to sell or gift the property to the mosque. Anti-Shi’a slogans are graffitied on the walls and they have dropped night letters warning them to leave the area. · He could not practise their religious activities openly and his father has confined himself to the house most of the time.· He fears terrorist groups will seriously harm him if he returns to Pakistan and he is easily recognisable throughout Pakistan as a Kandahari Shi’a. In 2017 there were 9 incidents of sectarian violence against Shi’as and 112 were killed and 306 injured. · He does not have relatives or family anywhere except Quetta and Karachi and his wife’s uncle was killed in Karachi. Terrorist groups like LeJ operate across Pakistan and are becoming more powerful day by day.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In the post-hearing submissions, the representative submitted that Quetta was not a safe place for the applicant and his family to reside, that the DFAT Smartraveller website listed Balochistan and the KP provinces as ‘do not travel’ zones and Forbes listed Pakistan as a kidnapping risk for Americans. Having found that there is a very low level of risk of random or targeted attacks on Shi’a, I do not accept that Quetta is not safe for the applicant and his family. As the applicant and his wife are not Americans, I do not accept as relevant the country information from Forbes about countries where Americans are most likely to be kidnapped. I note that Smartraveller advice is for Australians planning to travel, or already travelling or living, overseas.[15] The applicant is a Pakistan national. He claimed, and I accept, that his wife and child will remain in Australia with his wife’s [number] other children. As the applicant is a Pakistan national, I do not accept that the Smartraveller advice pertains to him.[15] Smartraveller.gov.au, ‘About us’ (Website) <>Considering the information before the Tribunal and my findings above, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from any group of sectarian terrorists, whether the LeJ or another, for being Shi’a if he returned to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. I also considered whether the applicant would face serious or significant harm in the form of societal discrimination. As the hearing, the applicant claimed he feared harm from the militants, his neighbours trying to take his house and his former in-laws, and these claims have been considered above. Based on the applicant’s evidence and the country information discussed at the hearing, I do not accept that the applicant’s engagements with Sunni customers and being invited to pray is serious or significant harm. I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from societal discrimination of Shi’a if he returns to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. CONCLUSION After considering all of the applicant’s claims that I accept, individually and cumulatively, I find that there is no real chance that the applicant will face serious harm in Pakistan for the reason of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. I am 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 is a real risk that he will be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a)-(e) of the definition of ‘torture’ in s 5(1) of the Act. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, or pain or suffering, either physical or mental, such as to meet the definition of ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ in s 5(1). Nor am I satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that he will suffer such harm as to meet the definition of ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ in s 5(1), which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. Considering my findings above, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).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).DECISIONThe Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.Katherine HarveySenior 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The current country information report prepared by DFAT is the ‘DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan’ dated 25 January 2022 (DFAT report).CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCESummary of claims In his application for protection, the applicant set out the following claims. · He is a Tajik (Kandahari) and Shi’a Muslim born in Quetta, he has [number] siblings and a wife, who is from Karachi and is a Tajik (Kandahari) Shi’a.· His father was an [occupation 1] in a [business 1] in [a location], until [a named] office opposite was attacked and there was a huge blast, which marked the end of his father’s work there. · He worked as [an occupation 2] for eight years. · When the situation for Shi’as started to turn genocidal it immensely affected his family. His [specified family members] were threatened by a [neighbour] and sought protection in Australia in 2012. · Quetta is home to around 800,000 Shi’as. In 2001, terrorist groups such as the Taliban, Lashkar-iJhangvi (LeJ) and Sepah Sahaba started the systematic targeting and killing of Shi’as and 3000 Shi’as have been killed and more than 3000 permanently incapacitated in the last decade. Shi’as have been warned their settlements in Hazara Town and on Alamdar Road will be transformed into graveyards if they don’t leave Pakistan where they are regarded as infidels. · He left Pakistan because his life was in danger from the terrorist groups, their associates and agents. He grew up wanting a peaceful life but despite making good money and having property and assets, he did not find peace in Pakistan. Everywhere they went, they feared being targeted and every day he left for work he did not know if he would return home in the evening. · [In] September 2017, he was driving to Karachi with his wife for his brother-in-law’s engagement when they were stopped in [Town 1], about [distance] from Quetta, by some armed men whose faces were covered. The men spoke Baluchi and demanded their national identity cards (NICs) and then questioned why his name included ‘[name]’ and his wife’s included ‘[name]’, which are both [Shi’a names]. His command of Baluchi and Pashto saved their lives as he told them they were not Shi’as but Pashtuns. The commander took photos of their NICs and said that they would do some checks. They threatened that if he reported them to the police they would shoot him dead anywhere in Pakistan as they know where he lives and works. · When they reached Karachi, they told his father-in-law about the incident and he recommended selling the car, and within the week they returned to Quetta by air. Everyone in Karachi told them to report the incident when they got back to Quetta so that the police could do something and prevent potential loss of life. When he returned to Quetta, he lodged a first instance report (FIR) as he feared that they would come after him and he wanted the police to prevent it. He did not go back to work after the incident as he was too fearful. · At his workplace on a number of occasions Sunni customers abused him and urged him to convert.· A Sunni Madrasa has been established next door to his home and clerics preach anti-Shi’a sermons. His father transferred the certificate of title to him because his father was constantly approached to sell or gift the property to the mosque. Anti-Shi’a slogans are graffitied on the walls and they have dropped night letters warning them to leave the area. · He could not practise their religious activities openly and his father has confined himself to the house most of the time.· He fears terrorist groups will seriously harm him if he returns to Pakistan and he is easily recognisable throughout Pakistan as a Kandahari Shi’a. In 2017 there were 9 incidents of sectarian violence against Shi’as and 112 were killed and 306 injured. · He does not have relatives or family anywhere except Quetta and Karachi and his wife’s uncle was killed in Karachi. Terrorist groups like LeJ operate across Pakistan and are becoming more powerful day by day.