2108730 (Refugee)

The applicants, a married couple from Pakistan, sought protection visas. The dispute concerned whether they met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they held a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Pakistan. The decision was made by Deputy President Denis Dragovic of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants qualified as refugees under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or whether they met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved determining if the first applicant, a Shia Muslim woman, had a well-founded fear of persecution based on her religion and gender, or if either applicant faced significant harm as a consequence of removal to Pakistan. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face a real risk of such harm, as outlined in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. It found that while the applicants were middle class and Shia Muslims, and the first applicant had experienced some bullying at school due to her faith, these experiences did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Pakistan. The Tribunal considered the applicants' family and work history, and the first applicant's religious practices. However, it concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the applicants would suffer persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, nor that they would face significant harm as defined by the Act. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants.