2212864 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 2504

2212864 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2504 (19 May 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr D Pereira (RACS)
CASE NUMBER:  2212864
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Antoinette Younes
DATE:19 May 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
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 19 May 2023 at 10:42am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Pakistan – religion – Shia Muslim –race – Bangash Pashtun ethnicity – fear of the Taliban and Sunni extremists – danger of travelling in and out of Parachinar – relocation to Islamabad or any other part of Pakistan is not reasonable – applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution– decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 46, 65, 91, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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 dependant.
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 Immigration and Border Protection 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 Pakistan, applied for the visa on 23 November 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 5 August 2013.
This matter has been before the Tribunal (differently constituted) on two previous occasions, both remitted by the Courts for reconsideration. The last occasion being on 12 August 2022.
The applicant appeared before both Tribunals for hearings and he appeared before the current Tribunal on 10 May 2023. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of interpreters in the Pashtun and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the hearing on 10 May 2023.
RELEVANT LAW
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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s 91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a Protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant's claims are contained in his Protection visa application forms, his Statutory Declaration of 8 November 2012, his evidence at an Irregular Maritime Arrival entry interview with an officer of the Department held in July 2012, his evidence at his Protection visa interview with the delegate held on 18 April 2013, his evidence at the hearings before the previous Tribunals and his evidence at the hearing before this Tribunal.
In the Statutory declaration provided with the application, the applicant indicated that:
·He was born in [Parachinar], Kurram Agency on [date]. He is a Pashtun of the Bangash Tribe and a practising Shia Muslim.
·He grew up in Parachinar and his father worked as a shop keeper [and] his mother worked as a housewife. He is single and he has no children. He completed 12 years of education and has worked in a [shop] part-time since 2007 and full-time since 2010.
·Life in Pakistan is generally very dangerous for Shia Muslims. The Taliban and its associated groups consider that it is their duty to kill Shia Muslims. Parachinar is particularly dangerous for Shia Muslims as there has been violence and fighting there for many years. The situation became particularly dangerous when fighting broke out between locals and the Taliban in 2007. The fighting was because the tribal leaders would not give permission to the Taliban to pass through the land to get to Afghanistan to fight coalition forces.
·In 2007, whilst the fighting was occurring, he was in his shop with two friends and they decided that they should go and get groceries. On their way back from the grocery shop they were caught up in the fighting and his two friends were shot and killed.
·On two other occasions, he was very lucky to escape a bomb that exploded near his shop. The situation was becoming worse every day. Following the fighting, the Taliban closed off the roads going out of Parachinar to Peshawar. This was particularly bad for him because he was unable to travel safely to Peshawar to obtain basic needs.
·Although there are hospitals in Parachinar, he needed to go to Peshawar for more advanced medication and treatment. He also needed to travel to Peshawar to obtain supplies for his business. The Taliban prevented basic supplies from coming into Parachinar and extremist groups burnt trucks attempting to travel on that road.
·Since the fighting started, Parachinar has become more dangerous. It is not safe to even leave the house. Many people have lost their lives and numerous explosions have taken place. The Taliban have targeted and killed people from the Shia Muslim faith and there are targeted killings, kidnappings, and explosions all the time. The situation was becoming increasingly dangerous, and he decided he needed to escape and “every day was a gamble”.
·In September 2011, with the assistance of a police convoy, he went to Peshawar and stayed there for a week and picked up his [passport]. He went to Karachi where he applied for a visa, and he left the country on [date] October 2011. Approximately one month prior to 8 November 2012, there was another explosion in front of his shop.
·He fears he would be kidnapped, tortured, or killed if he returned to Pakistan. He would be targeted because of his Shia faith by Sunni extremists. The barriers placed around Parachinar by the Taliban impact on his ability to live a free life and he lives in constant fear. The barriers of the Taliban prevent him from travelling and impact on his ability to operate his business and his ability to subsist. There is nowhere safe for him to live in Pakistan because he has no family or links elsewhere in Pakistan. The government does not have the ability to protect him.
The applicant provided documents with the application which included education and identity documents. The applicant was interviewed by the delegate on 18 April 2013.
In submissions dated 2 May 2013, the applicant’s representative contended that:
·The Kurram Agency and Parachinar is a volatile region and tribal and sectarian fighting between Shias and Sunni Muslims has been prevalent over the last few years. There are “devastating” effects of the fighting on native Turi and Bangash tribes, and a number of attacks on Shia Muslims in the Kurram Agency.
·There are “numerous decisions” made by the RRT (Refugee Review Tribunal) this year (2013) recognising the persecution of Shia Muslims in the Kurram Agency. Although it is true that the applicant has not been personally targeted by these groups, this does not negate the fact that extremist groups are targeting all Shia Muslims in Parachinar. Country information supports the applicant’s claims that Shia Muslims from Parachinar are subject to systemic persecution for reasons of their religion, imputed political opinion and membership of a particular social group.
·The fact that the airports and roads are open, a military base operates in Parachinar and the applicant’s family remains in Parachinar, does not establish that Parachinar can be categorised as safe for Shia Muslims.
·The relevant question is whether extremists in Parachinar continue to target Shia Muslims in a systematic and discriminatory manner and whether the applicant’s fear is well-founded. The applicant’s fears harm at the hands of the Taliban and other extremists who consider it their duty to kill Shia Muslims throughout Pakistan.
·Country information supports a finding that the applicant’s fear in Parachinar is well-founded. Country reports refer to violent attacks against Shias throughout Pakistan. The applicant could not relocate to another part of Pakistan; he is only [age] years of age, and he has no family or other ties or links in any other part of Pakistan. It is not reasonable to expect him to relocate to another part of Pakistan where the environment is fraught with danger, and where he cannot safely and openly practise his faith or have tribal ties.
The delegate accepted that the applicant is from Parachinar, Upper Kurram, of the Shia faith and is an ethnic Bangash Pashtun. However, the delegate did not accept that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm by the Taliban or any other Sunni groups for reasons of religion, imputed anti-Taliban political opinion as a Shia from Parachinar/Upper Kurram, or for any other Convention reason. Similarly, the delegate was not satisfied that there was a real risk of the applicant facing significant harm.
The reviews
The first review
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 October 2014 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant provided newspaper reports to the Tribunal on a bomb which killed seven people in Peshawar in October 2014. The reports indicate that the bomb blast occurred on Kohat Road and the bus was travelling to Parachinar. The report states that most of the dead are from Parachinar in Kurram Agency. Further material was provided such as newspaper articles on the bomb blast that killed seven people and a report on security forces averting a terror bid as they defused 30 kilograms of explosive material found at a bus stand in Parachinar area of Kurram Agency.
During the hearing on 14 October 2014, the applicant made new claims such as being specifically targeted. He claimed that he was targeted by his Sunni classmates with whom he had studied and his Sunni customers with whom he had done business. He stated that he had been threatened and his two friends were killed. The applicant claimed that after he sold his shop there was a bomb blast in front of his shop and had he been in Pakistan he would have been killed. The applicant also claimed that his [age]-year-old brother, whom he had told the Tribunal at the commencement of the hearing was living with his parents in Parachinar, was missing and the family does not know where he is living, but that his uncle will support his brother wherever he resides.
When challenged by the previous Member that the incident in 2007 appeared to be as a result of the generalised clashes occurring at that time, the applicant stated that the persons who were killed were his friends and neighbours.
The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was specifically targeted in 2007 or that he had been specifically targeted by his Sunni classmates or customers. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the bomb blast in the marketplace which was near his shop was aimed specifically at him, rather than aimed at Shia generally.
Although the Tribunal accepted that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution due to his religion and ethnicity in case of his return to Parachinar in the Upper Kurram Agency, the Tribunal was not satisfied that all Shias face a real chance of harm in all parts of Pakistan. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant would be able to reside safely in Rawalpindi or Islamabad and that he would not be denied the capacity to subsist.
The second review
The applicant said that the only ground on which he feared harm in Pakistan was his fear of the Taliban and Sunni extremists because he is a Pashtun Bangash Shia from Parachinar. During the second review hearing, among other things, and in relation to his evidence to the earlier Tribunal that his brother had gone missing and his whereabouts were unknown, the applicant stated that was wrong. He said that because a number of people died on the boat in which he travelled to come to Australia his father did not want to upset him and refrained from telling him initially that he had sent his brother out of Pakistan. He stated that at the time he appeared before the first Tribunal he was under the impression that his brother had gone missing based on what he was initially told by his family.
In essence, the second Tribunal accepted that there was a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Parachinar as a Pashtun Bangash Shia, but the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had a profile beyond being a Pashtun Bangash Shia from Parachinar, or a person with a profile likely to be the victim of militant and sectarian violence in Islamabad, where he could relocate.
The Tribunal found that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Islamabad because he is a Pashtun Shia from Parachinar or on any ground was remote. The Tribunal found that it was reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate to Islamabad where the Tribunal found there was no appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution.

In essence, both previous Tribunals accepted that the applicant is a Bangash Pashtun man, a Shia Muslim, a Pakistani citizen, he was born in Parachinar, Upper Kurram district in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan, he resided there until he left in 2011, and that he may be identifiable as a Pashtun Bangash Shia from Parachinar in other parts of Pakistan.
It was also accepted that the Thall-Parachinar Road is the only way to travel into Parachinar by road, that flights into the airport at Parachinar are an option for wealthier people, and that Parachinar and the Thall-Parachinar Road have been the site of violent sectarian attacks 2007-2012 and 2014. Ultimately finding that there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm in Parachinar given the danger of travel in and out of Parachinar.
Judicial review
In relation to the second Tribunal decision, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the appeal on 12 May 2016. However, the FCC found that the second Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error in not properly addressing the applicant's claim that if he were to return to Pakistan and relocate to another part where he does not face the same risk as in Parachinar, he would still travel to Parachinar to visit his family who are still living there.[1] The Court found '…what the applicant would do upon return was relevant to the practical realities of relocation. Having not excluded the possibility of travel to Parachinar, the Tribunal was obliged to consider the potential consequences of this.’[2] The FCC also accepted 'that the Tribunal's reasoning demonstrates that it did not adequately grapple with or dispose of those claims...’[3]
[1] [reference deleted].
[2] [reference deleted ].
[3] [reference deleted ].
The current review
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a statement, submissions, a brief letter from Mr [A], Psychologist confirming that the applicant is receiving treatment, and documents relating to his mother’s health.
In his statement, among other things, the applicant reiterated his claims and explained that if he were forced to return to Pakistan, it would not be safe for him to live in Parachinar where there have been recent attacks on Shias. He claimed that his family in Parachinar live in fear and there is lack of food and medicine. He noted that as he is the eldest child, he has a significant responsibility towards his parents, including providing financial assistance. He claimed that the road to Parachinar is very dangerous and there is no protection from the Pakistani authorities
In the submissions, dated 9 May 2023, the representative provided a history of the matter and contended that the situation for Shias in Pakistan has deteriorated and the applicant continues to fear harm. The submissions were supported by multiple sources referring to the situation in Pakistan in relation to the Shia population.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that his parents are still alive as well as his 4 siblings, all of whom continue to live in Parachinar. He stated that the family lives in fear and only go out when needed. He said Shias continue to be targeted and that he fears that he would be in case of his return to Pakistan. He stated that it was a ‘matter of luck’ that he did not suffer any actual harm. He said there is no peace in Parachinar and that relocation is not reasonable as he would have to travel to Parachinar to see his family but the road remains unsafe. He claimed that due to his limited level of education, he would also have difficulties in finding work.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claim relating to his ’missing’ brother. He said his brother had gone to [Country 1] and they feared he was missing.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about Mr [A] and noted that the report is brief. The applicant gave evidence that he does not have a Medicare card which has limited his ability to obtain care. He said he sees Mr [A] for depression. The applicant discussed the event about when many people died at sea on the boat on which he was during his trip to Australia. He became visibly upset and tearful when talking about the trauma and the sadness of the event.
FINDINGS and REASONS
For the following reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and that he therefore satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).
On the basis of the available information and for the purpose of this review, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Pakistan. The applicant made no claim to be a national of any other country.
The Tribunal finds that the claims should be assessed against Pakistan for the purposes of the Convention in s 36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s 36(2)(aa).
On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Bangash Pashtun, a Shia Muslim, and that he was born in Parachinar, Upper Kurram district in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan, where he resided until he left in 2011. The Tribunal is satisfied that he may be identifiable as a Pashtun Bangash Shia from Parachinar in other parts of Pakistan. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not specifically targeted whilst he lived in Pakistan. However, this does not exclude the real chance of future harm.
Department of Foreign Affairs Report (‘DFAT’) assessed that although there has been improvement, Shias in Pakistan face a moderate risk of sectarian violence and a moderate risk of societal discrimination in the form of anti-Shia protests and community violence. DFAT also noted that certain Shias including the Bangash face specific and heightened risks.[4] DFAT refers to the Laskar-e-Jhangvi ('LeJ') as an example of 'a radical Sunni militant group that follows the Deobandi school of Islam [and] seeks to eradicate Shia influence from Pakistan', often doing so by means of violent and deadly attacks on Shia communities.[5]
[4] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan (‘DFAT Report’), 25 January 2022, [3.61].
[5] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 25 January 2022, [2.41].
DFAT reported:[6]
3.58 Shi’a face rising religious intolerance and official discrimination in the form of blasphemy accusations. Over 70 per cent of blasphemy cases are against Shi’a. Anti-Shi’a sentiment is seen in politics: in July 2020, the Punjab Provincial Assembly passed a law to ‘protect the foundation of Islam’ which would criminalise Shi’a beliefs about the Companions of the Prophet (the Governor returned it for revision).
3.59 Sectarian tensions often flare during Muharram, when Shi’a mourn the killing of the Prophet Mohammad’s grandson and his family, a key event in the Sunni-Shi’a schism. In 2020, over 40 Shi’a were charged with blasphemy following Muharram, including clerics accused of insulting the Companions of the Prophet during ritual processions. Thousands of Sunni protesters took to the streets in Karachi and Islamabad chanting anti-Shi’a slogans. There were targeted killings of Shi’a in multiple cities. The Karachi head of the TLP openly threatened beheadings for Shi’a ‘blasphemers’. Videos of these incidents circulated on social media. Authorities have attempted to curb sectarian hatred during Muharram, for instance by banning firebrand Sunni and Shi’a clerics from leaving home and by cutting off mobile phone services in major cities during processions.
3.60 Shi’a have historically been targeted by sectarian terrorist groups such as the TTP, LeJ and IS... These groups have attacked Shi’a individuals, places of worship, shrines and religious schools, as well as Shi’a travelling to Iran or Iraq for religious pilgrimage. The frequency of these attacks has steadily declined since 2013. Terrorist attacks targeting Shi’a killed five and injured 14 in 2020 (not including attacks targeting Shi’a Hazaras..), compared with 32 deaths in 2019 and 471 deaths in 2013. This is a result of the overall improvement in the security situation in Pakistan, as well as increased security provided by the Pakistani police for Shi’a places of worship and processions. Nevertheless, sectarian terrorist groups retain the capacity and intent to carry out attacks against Shi’a anywhere in the country. At least three people were killed and 50 injured in the bombing of a Shi’a procession in Bahawalnagar, Punjab in August 2021.
In relation to the Bangash, DFAT reported that:[7]
3.67 The Bangash are a Pashtun tribe found in Kurram Agency and Kohat and Hangu districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Some Bangash tribes are Shi’a and some are Sunni or a mix of both. Risks to Bangash include inter-tribal violence, including an historical animosity with the Turis. Some sources say this animosity has lessened or resolved in recent years, but DFAT was unable to find information on the situation on the ground from in-country sources.
3.68 DFAT assesses that Bangash living in tribal areas face a moderate risk of violence where they clash with other ethnic groups. Shi’a Bangash live in their own communities and this limits the possibility of societal discrimination. In other parts of Pakistan DFAT assesses that Shi’a Bangash face a similar level of discrimination as other Shi’a and Pashtuns.
[6] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 25 January 2022.
[7]DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 25 January 2022.
In submissions to the Tribunal, the representative referred to the growing danger for Shias in Pakistan as evidenced in the rallies held in a number of large anti-Shia rallies that were held across Pakistan in September 2020, organised by the TLP, including in Karachi and Islamabad. The representative contended that the danger that the radical groups pose to people living in Shia communities means that, were the applicant to participate in any group worship or religious practices, or even live in areas with large Shia populations, anywhere in Pakistan, he is at risk of violence.[8]
[8] Submissions dated 9 May 2023, [24].
The representative attached a document setting out significant events[9] relating to the security situation in Pakistan, most of which are not reflected in the reports that decision-makers are required to take into account under Ministerial Direction Number. The representative argued that the list of incidents demonstrates the sectarian nature of the attacks occurring across Pakistan and the inability of state forces to provide meaningful or durable protection to targeted minorities. The attacks are largely targeting civilians in places of worship and daily routine.
[9] All of which were cited as footnoted.
The following incidents were referred to in the attachment:
·4 May 2023 - 8 people killed in two separate shootings in Parachinar, including 6 teachers. Police have commented that the attackers killed the victims after identifying them as a Shiite believers.[10]
[10] The New York Times, ‘8 Killed in Pakistan Shootings, Including 6 Teachers’ (online, 4 May 2023) < .
·30 January 2023 - At least 59 people were killed, and 157 injured, by a suicide bombing that apparently targeted policemen praying in a mosque in Peshawar, Pakistan.[11]
[11] 2 BBC News, ‘Pakistan mosque blast: Police targeted in suicide attack that kills 59’ (online, 30 January) < September 2022 - Bomb blast inside sweet shop in Balochistan Province kills 1 and injures. No claim for responsibility, but it has been blamed on militants and separatists.[12]
[12] As noted in General Submission, Annexure F: Pakistan Chronology of Events, 2.
·14 September 2022 - 8 people were killed in a roadside bombing which targeted an anti-Taliban village elder’s vehicle in Northwestern Pakistan. TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) claimed responsibility for the attack.[13]
[13] AP News, ‘Death toll from overnight bombing in Pakistan rises to 8’ (online, 14 September 2022) <
·7 August 2022 - Three injured, including a policeman in a bomb blast in Quetta. The bomb was planted in a motorcycle parked near Hazar Ganji market.[14]
[14] The Print, ‘Pakistan: Policeman among three injured as bomb planted in vehicle explodes in Quetta’ (online, 7 August 2022).
·30 July 2022 - Two people were injured in a bomb blast in Turbat, Balochistan. The explosion occurred inside a football stadium parking lot.[15]
[15] Samaa, ‘Two injured in Turbat bomb blast’ (online, 30 July 2022) < June 2022 - Bomb/gun attack in Jacobabad kills 1 and injures 8.[16]
[16] The Print, ‘Pakistan: 1 killed, 8 injured in gun, bomb attack in Jacobabad’ (online, 26 June 2022) < May 2022 - At least 8 people killed including security force members, children and members of the minority Sikh group in two separate attacks. One attack occurred in North Waziristan (district in Khyber Pakhtunkwa province) killing three soldiers and three children. The other attack occurred in Peshawar where a gunman shot two Sikh shopkeepers.[17]
[17] VOA, ‘Suicide Blast, Gunmen Kill 8 People in Pakistan’ (online, 15 May 2022) < kill-8-people-in-pakistan/6574053.html>.
·30 April 2022 - A policeman was killed and 5 were injured in two explosions in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkwa province.[18]
[18] Outlook, ‘Pakistan: Policeman Killed, Five Injured In Two Blasts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’ (online, 30 April 2022) < March 2022 - A suicide attack by a bomber from the Islamic State killed 64 people and more than 200 people were seriously injured in Khorasan Province on a pre-partition era Shia mosque at Kocha Risaldar.[19]
[19] Veengas, ‘Why Have We Become Targets of Hatred, Asks Pakistan's Shia Community’, The Wire (online, 10 March 2022)
·28 January 2022 - Bombing in Sui, Balochistan kills 4 and injures 10. The article mentions “Provincial and federal government of Pakistan are failing to protect innocent people. This kind of situation will push people to take measures on their own”.[20]
[20] Dawn, ‘Blast in Balochistan’s Sui area claims 4 lives, injures 10,’ (online, 28 January 2022) < January 2022 - At least two people were killed and over 20 were injured during a bomb blast at a market in Lahore. A newly formed separatist group in Balochistan claimed responsibility.[21]
[21] Gandhara, ‘At Least Two Killed, Over 20 Wounded in Bombing at Pakistan Bazaar’ (online, 20 January 2022) <
·30 December 2021 - 4 people were killed and 15 injured in a bomb explosion in Southwestern Pakistan. The bomb was planted in a vehicle parked outside a college in central Quetta.[22]
[22] VOA News, ‘4 Killed, 15 Hurt in Southwestern Pakistan Bomb Blast’ (online, 30 December 2021) < blast/6375930.html>.
·2 November 2021 - 13 people were injured in a blast in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province when a roadside bomb exploded near a vehicle carrying security personnel. Most of the people injured were civilians.[23]
[23] The Seattle Times, ‘Bomb targeting security forces wounds 13 in Pakistan’ (online, 2 November 2021)
·22 September 2021- Girl’s school was damaged in an explosion in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Tank district. No lives were lost.[24]
[24] Dawn, ‘Explosion damages girls’ school in KP’s Tank’ (online, 22 September 2021) < September 2021 - A suicide attack in Baluchistan killed at least 4 people and injured 20. The militant group, TTP claimed responsibility for the attack.[25]
[25] NBC News, ‘Suicide Attack by Pakistan’s Taliban kills at least 4, injures 20’ (online, 5 September 2021) <Suicide attack by Pakistan's Taliban kills at least 4, injures 20 (nbcnews.com)>
·27 December 2020 - Seven soldiers at a security post were killed in an attack by an unidentified gunman in Baluchistan, Pakistan. The killer still remains unidentified. Baluchistan faces a multifaceted threat from several armed groups, including the Taliban and other movements seeking the province’s secession from Pakistan.[26]
[26] Al Jazeera, ‘Several soldiers killed by gunmen in south western Pakistan’ (online, 27 December 2020)
·28 November 2020 - A mob of lawyers broke the doors of a courtroom and called for the removal of a judge who granted bail to a Shia Muslim accused of blasphemy. Protestors shouted, ‘we want the head of the blasphemer’ and ‘beheading the only punishment for the blasphemer’.[27]
[27] UCA News, ‘Shia Muslims feel the heat of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws’ (online, 1 December 2020) < November 2020 - Pakistan’s military report that there are fears the Pakistani Taliban is regrouping in North Waziristan, Pakistan.[28]
[28] Al Jazeera, ‘Pakistan solder four fighters killed in Afghan border attack’ (online,22 November 2020) < October 2020 - A school in Peshawar was bombed, killing at least 8 students and wounding 136 others. The attackers remain unidentified, but the Peshawar region has seen attacks by militants in recent years, including the Pakistani Taliban.[29]
[29] ABC News, ‘Bomb at seminary in Pakistan kills students wounds dozens’ (online, 27 October 2020_
·October 2020 - Police beat up and arrested 22 Shia Muslims, including 7 women, who were taking part in a ceremony to mark a Shia martyr.[30]
[30] The Guardian, ‘Pakistani Shias Live in Terror as Sectarian Violence Increases’ (online, 21 October 2020) < – October 2020 - Over 50 Shia Muslims charged with blasphemy and anti-terrorist charges. Five have been killed since 30 August 2020.[31]
[31] The Diplomat, ‘The Changing Landscape of Anti-Shia Politics in Pakistan’ (online, 28 September 2020)
< September 2020 - Since March 2020, the Pakistan Taliban has unleashed a wave of attacks on Pakistani security forces within northwest Pakistan. At least 40 soldiers have been killed since March 2020.[32]
[32] Al Jazeera, ‘Attacks surge in Northwest Pakistan amid Afghan peace effort’ (online, 18September 2020)
·16 September 2020 - Two Shia men shot dead inside a medical store in Kohat by unidentified motorcyclists.[33]
[33] Dawn, ‘Tension in Kohat after murder of two men’ (online, 16 September 2020)< September 2020 - A license holder of a Shia procession was gunned down in Heelan area of Madi Bahauddin, Punjab.[34]
[34] Shiite News, ‘Sipah Sahaba ASWJ terrorists resume Shia genocide in Punjab’ (online, 13 September 2020) < sahaba-aswj-terrorists-resume-shia-genocide-in-punjab/>.
·11 September 2020 - March of 30,000 people organized by extremist Sunni Muslim groups gathered in Karachi over two days calling for beheading of Shia Muslims, and in other cities including Islamabad.[35] Many observed that the outrage against Shia Muslims was ‘unprecedented and alarming’ and that it was the first time three prominent Sunni groups (Deobandi, Sufi Barelvis and Salfists) have concurrently held public rallies in a single week.[36]
[35] The Guardian, ‘Pakistani Shias live in terror as sectarian violence increases’ (online, 21 Oct 2020) < The Diplomat, ‘The Changing Landscape of Anti-Shia Politics in Pakistan’ (online, 28 Sep 2020) < September 2020 - Shia trader killed by ASWJ Sipah Sahaba terrorists at his shop in Kohat, Pakistan.[37]
[37] Op India, ‘Shia shopkeeper gunned down in broad daylight in Pakistan amidst rising anti-Shia sentiments” (online, 13 September 2020) < August 2020 - Anti-Shia protest held in Karachi, Pakistan. The protest erupted due to a raft of blasphemy accusations against major Shia leaders in Pakistan. Demonstrators held banners of the extremist Anti-Shia group Sipah-e-Sahaba, which has been linked to the killing of hundreds of Shias over the years.[38]
[38] Arab News, ‘Anti-Shia protest rattles Pakistan’s Karachi’ (online, 11 September 2020
·30 August 2020 - An elderly Shia man arrested over allegations he recited Ziarat-e- Ashura, an essential part of Shia practice, but deemed un-Islamic or blasphemous by militant organisations.[39]
[39] Minority Rights Group International, ‘Shi’a become latest target of Pakistan’s extremist Islamic factions; murders, hate speech and numerous blasphemy allegation sow seeds of long-term religious tension’ (online, 20 October 2020) < August 2020 - The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) has highlighted findings by the Pakistan Human Rights Commission (HRCP) where it stated that enforced disappearances and missing persons remain a major issue in the Balochistan region of the country.[40]
[40] India Blooms News Service, ‘Pakistan: European think tank flags human rights situation in Balochistan in latest report’ (online, 23 August 2020) < rights-situation-in-balochistan-in-latest-report.html>.
·18 August 2020 - “A powerful roadside bomb exploded among a procession Shia Muslims in central Pakistan, killing at least three and wounding over 50 people.” The attack took place in the deeply conservative city of Bahawalnagar in the eastern Punjab province.[41]
[41] TRT World, ‘Deadly explosion hits Shia procession in Pakistan’ (online, 18 August 2020) < explosion-hits-shia-procession-in-pakistan-12762132>.
·15 August 2020 - A Shia Ismaili policeman was shot dead. His killing is being investigated ‘in the context of sectarian background as the victim was Shia.’[42]
[42] Dawn, ‘Policeman shot dead in suspected sectarian attack in Karimabad’ (online, 15 August 2020)
·9 August 2020 - Unidentified gunmen shot dead a Shia caretaker of a Shia religious place (imambargah) in northwest Pakistan.[43]
[43] The New Indian Express, ‘Caretaker of Shia religious place killed in Pakistan’ (online, 9 August 2020) < 2020 - 42 blasphemy cases registered in Pakistan, and according to Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), more than 75% filed against Shias.[44]
[44] The Economic Times, ‘Hazara killings highlight plight of Shia community in Pakistan’ (online, January 6 2021) < July 2020 - A man accused of blasphemy for claiming that he was a prophet was shot dead in a courtroom in Peshawar.[45] The latest violence associated with Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws.
[45] The Guardian, ‘Man on trial for blasphemy shot dead in court in Pakistan’ (online, 30 July 2020) < July 2020 - 17 people were injured in a bomb blast at an open air Turi market in Parachinar, a majority Shia town.[46]
·22 July 2020 - The Punjab Assembly passed a new blasphemy law, with criticism by others that this would encourage extremism.[47]
·2 July 2020 - A land dispute between two tribes in the Kurram Agency resulted in armed conflict causing up to 15 deaths and at least 30 injuries. Sources note that there was an element of sectarian conflict in the dispute.[48]
·16 June 2020 - The Pakistani Government disclosed they were behind the enforced disappearance of leading human rights defender Idris Khattak, who went missing on 13 November 2019. The Pakistani Government confirmed he was in their custody and has been indefinitely detained.[49]
·6 May 2020 - An explosion in a Shia Mosque injures one in Lower Kurram. The explosion sparked protests where hundreds of people, including activist and political/religious figures, termed the ‘incident as a conspiracy to ignite sectarian strife in the region’.[50]
·31 March 2020 - ‘Government officials in Balochistan are scapegoating the already vulnerable and marginalized Hazara Shi’a community for this public health crisis’. Two Hazara areas were complete sealed off in the Quetta region, where allusions were made to COVID being a ‘Shi’a virus’.[51]
·2 February 2020 - Seven members of a family were killed in an explosion inside a house at Batwar village in Salarzai tehsil (revenue unit) of Bajaur District in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in evening of February 2, reports Dawn. According to an official, the incident occurred when an explosive device went off. Initial reports suggested that a mortar shell fired by suspected militants from Afghanistan’s Kunar Province had hit the house in Batwar.”[52]
·16 October 2019 - The killing of two people in Sadda, Kurram Agency sparked violent protests. The killings were related to a feud between villages. Member of the National Assembly Hussain Turi said, “vested interests were trying to turn a dispute between two families into sectarian issue to disturb peaceful environment in Kurram before the Chehlum of Hazrat Imam Hussain (AS)”.[53]
·19 August 2019 - 6 people were killed and 17 were injured in a blast in Upper Dir District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The blast was linked to a feud with connections to the Taliban.[54]
·21 July 2019 - Nine people including 3 civilians and 6 Policemen were killed by a gun attack and bomb blast in Dera Ismail Khan. Following the attack, there was a bomb blast at the hospital which the victims were being treated. TTP spokesperson Muhammad Khorasani stated that the attack was carried out in retaliation for the killing of a suspected terrorist by the Counter-Terrorism Department in Dera Ismail Khan on 23rd June 2019.[55]
[46] Hindustan Times, ‘17 injured in bomb blast at open-air market in northwest Pakistan’ (online, 23 July 2020)
[47] Dawn, ‘Widespread criticism over rationale for new law to ‘protect’ Islam’ (online, 27 July 2020) < The Express Tribune, ‘15 killed in clash between two tribes in Kurram’ (online, 2 July 2020)
[49] The Guardian, ‘Kidnap, torture, murder: the plight of Pakistan’s thousands of disappeared’ (online, 14 December 2020) < disappeared>.
[50] Dawn, ’Protest staged against Kurram blast’ (online, 10 May 2020)< against-kurram-blast>.
[51] USCIRF, ’USCIRF Troubled with Targeting of Hazara Shi’a in Pakistan amid Coronavirus Lockdown’ (online 31 March 2020)
[52] Dawn, Anwarullah Khan, ‘Seven killed in Bajaur house explosion’ (online, 3 February 2020)
[53] Dawn, ‘Double murder sparks violent protests in Kurram’ (online, 16 October 2019)
[54] Dawn, ‘Six killed in Upper Dir blast’ (online, August 19 2019)< blast/>.
[55] Dawn, ‘Six policemen martyred in gun, bomb attack in DI Khan’ (online, 21 July 2019) < type="1">
The representative referred to the September 2022 of the International Crisis Group report, A New Era of Sectarian Violence in Pakistan which reported on the new threats towards Shias in Pakistan:
What's new? The rise of a local Islamic State franchise and the growing influence of a hard-line and violent protest movement known as "Labaik" that draws support mostly from Pakistan's Barelvi majority, open a new chapter in the country's sectarian violence, which until recently was driven largely by Deobandi groups.
Why does it matter? These two groups, though very different, are responsible for some of the country's worst intercommunal bloodshed. Sectarian militancy thus extends across the spectrum of Sunni Islamist groups. Muslim minorities, particularly Shias, are deeply vulnerable. Vigilantism is a danger as hardliners mobilise around allegations of blasphemy to gain political clout.[56]
[56] International Crisis Group, ‘A New Era of Sectarian Violence in Pakistan’(online, 5 September 2022) <>
The representative relied on previous AAT decisions where it was accepted that there is an increased targeting and risks for Shia people in Pakistan.
In consideration of the evidence as whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious harm for reasons of his Shia religion and Bangash Pashtun ethnicity in the reasonably foreseeable future if he were return to the Kurram District. In reaching those findings, the Tribunal has considered whether the applicant could access an adequate standard of protection if he returned to Pakistan.
The Tribunal acknowledges DFAT’s reporting that the frequency of terrorist attacks targeting Shia has declined and that this is a result of the overall improvement in the security situation in Pakistan including the increased security provided by the Pakistani police for Shi’a places of worship and processions, it is nevertheless evident that sectarian terrorist groups retain the capacity and intent to carry out attacks against Shia anywhere in the country. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Pakistani authorities have not succeeded in eliminating the threat of harm to individuals or groups likely to be targeted, such as the applicant. In fact and as DFAT reported, Shia continue to face rising religious intolerance and official discrimination in the form of blasphemy accusations and that there is anti-Shi’a sentiment in politics.[57] According to reports cited above, the situation is deteriorating, which indicates that the government's ability to control the situation is limited.
[57] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 25 January 2022, [3.60].
In those circumstances, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant would not be able to access appropriate protection against the harm he fears if he returns to Pakistan and resides in Parachinar.
Relocation has been a significant issue in this case. The Tribunal has considered the possibility that the applicant could avoid the harm he fears in Kurram District by relocating within Pakistan. The applicant has claimed that he would face a level of danger by visiting Parachinar while living elsewhere in Pakistan, such that it would make his relocation to any other part of that country an unreasonable prospect.
Moreover, the applicant has claimed, and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has no family members outside of Parachinar upon whom he could rely to find work or accommodation, or to provide financial support to him. The Tribunal accepts that although the applicant was able to live temporarily outside of Parachinar with the financial support of his paternal uncle, the applicant will not be able to rely on his uncle's support if he were to return, as the uncle has now returned to [Parachinar]. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that if relocated to other parts of Pakistan, he would still have to visit his family in Parachinar and travel using a road that is unsafe. The Tribunal accepts that there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm taking into account the danger of travelling in and out of Parachinar. The Tribunal also notes and accepts that the applicant suffers from mental health challenges which heightens the impact of the harm he faces. As the Court held in [reference deleted], psychological impact of relocation is relevant to the question of the reasonableness of relocation.[58]
[58] [reference deleted].
Given the lack of safety and in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal finds that relocation to Islamabad or any other part of Pakistan is not reasonable. The risk of the applicant suffering serious harm on the grounds of his faith and Bangash Pashtun ethnicity is not remote or far-fetched.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that if he were granted a Protection visa on the basis of his claims for protection, he may not be able to travel to Pakistan to see his family. He stated that like many, he would travel to Iran and meet with his family. Although not entirely persuasive, the direct question for the Tribunal is whether relocation is reasonable. In fact, in the second FCC decision, the Court found that although living in Australia would preclude the applicant from visiting his family in Parachinar, this is irrelevant to the reasonableness test which determines whether a Protection visa applicant can be refused that visa based on their ability to relocate within the borders of their country of citizenship.
In essence and on considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious harm for reasons of his Shia religion and Bangash Pashtun ethnicity in the reasonably foreseeable future if he were return to the Kurram District and that it is not reasonable for him to relocate to another part of Pakistan where he would face a real chance of serious harm for reasons of his religion and ethnicity.
The applicant therefore meets the refugee criterion in 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.
Antoinette Younes
Deputy President

<

<‘ Lv8zOLz58pGNCWtiGwvxXP.html>.

<

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Standing

Remedies

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

2212864 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2504

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited