2011902 (Refugee)

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.