2012120 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Pakistan, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. He claimed to fear harm in Pakistan from his family and community due to his conversion from Sunni Islam to Christianity and his renunciation of Islam. The Federal Circuit Court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Pakistan.

The court was tasked with assessing whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning his claimed conversion to Christianity and the resulting fear of harm. This involved considering whether the applicant had adequately demonstrated his practice of Christianity, his baptism, his connection with Christian practitioners, his renunciation of Islam, his family's awareness of his conversion, and the likelihood of adverse attention from Pakistani authorities or the community due to his religious change and marriage to an Australian. The court also had to consider whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Pakistan.

The court found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. While acknowledging the applicant's identity as a Pakistani national, the court noted significant gaps in the information provided regarding his background, family circumstances, the details of his conversion, his Christian practices in Australia, and his current fears. Crucially, the court determined that it was unable to be satisfied that the applicant had practised Christianity to a level of religious practice, had been baptised in a relevant context, had any connection with Christian practitioners, had renounced Islam, or that his family was aware of his conversion. Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the applicant would face adverse attention from Pakistani authorities or the community due to his claimed conversion and practices, or that his marriage to an Australian would lead to such adverse attention.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee provisions or the complementary protection provisions, due to the lack of sufficient evidence to support his claims of persecution or significant harm.