2301855 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 2087

2301855 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 2087 (9 SEPTEMBER 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2301855
Tribunal:General Member Rosa Gagliardi
Date:9 September 2025

Place:Australian Capital Territory
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:
·s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 09 September 2025 at 2:58pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – brother of drug dealer – brother’s imprisonments, criminal associations and kidnapping for ransom – applicant and parents subject to attention by police, community and brother’s associates and enemies – emotional and financial consequences – police reports provided – religion – non-practising Sunni Muslim with Westernised appearance, attitudes and lifestyle, now holding anti-Islamic views – mental health and treatment – country information – drugs, jihadism and blasphemy laws – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 January 2023 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 national of Pakistan (a matter the Tribunal accepts) applied for the visa on 22 January 2019.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis it was considered that he did not meet the refugee criteria as per s.36(2)(a) or, in the alternative the complementary protection under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
Evidence before the Department
The applicant came to Australia on a student visa in July 2014.
The applicant claimed he had a well-founded fear persecution on return to Pakistan on account of his brother, [Mr A], who is a drug dealer in Karachi and has been imprisoned on multiple occasions and that:
·His brother keeps company with a group of drug dealers who commit criminal enterprises to fund their addictions.
·As a result of his brother’s actions, his family was under the spotlight (unwelcome) of the police, community, his associates and enemies in the criminal world.
·The family has been impoverished in their attempts to assist [Mr A] with rehabilitation.
·[Mr A] and his criminal associates hound the applicant and his family for money even after he moved to Australia.
·The applicant fears being targeted by police because of his familial relationship with his brother and that the applicant may be implicated somehow with [Mr A]’s crimes.
·He fears that the families of his brother’s victims will attack him in revenge and that he could be kidnapped, robbed or extorted because of his brother’s actions and the perceptions that he is now wealthy having lived in Australia.
·The applicant also fears harm as a Sunni who rejects many of the teachings of Islam. He wears fashionable clothing, has piercings in his [body parts] which set him apart. He fears he will be viewed as being a criminal like his brother because of his outlook and attitudes as well as being anti-Islam and a Western liberal sympathiser. His appearance and inability to conform to Islamic norms will make it difficult to live in Pakistan as well as gain employment.
·He will have to live in Karachi with his mother because he cannot afford to live elsewhere and fears the violence in the city which is out of control and where the police are ineffective and corrupt.
One of the reasons the Department had doubts about the applicant’s credibility is that they could not find a family registration which listed [Mr A] as the applicant’s brother, casting doubt on the applicant’s claims overall.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The hearing
The applicant confirmed at hearing he was suffering mental health issues, but he had lived with these for a while now. Asked if he was seeing a psychologist, he stated he was and provided the name.
The applicant explained that his family consisted of himself, his brother and their parents and that he could demonstrate this through his family registration. He had submitted it at the time of his student visa application but did not do so for the purposes of the protection visa application, because at the time he was grappling with mental health issues.
His father was in a [work sector] position, and they were lower middle class. His mother sometimes acted as a match maker. The applicant attended to year 12 and his brother, [Mr A], was now around [Age] years of age. The applicant never worked in Pakistan, and he usually stayed home.
The applicant confirmed he was a Sunni Muslim, but he did not practise and was emphatic about this.
The applicant stated that their problems began when his brother finished university and became involved in the “drug mafia”. His brother had always been different like that. He watched movies that had inspired him to be a gangster. He had friends come home and go up to the terrace and they prepared “things” to sell and roamed the neighbourhood.
One day the applicant received a call to say that to have their brother released they would need to pay $300. Asked who had kidnapped his brother, the applicant stated that in Karachi there were private agencies who would take people involved in criminal activities off the streets for a ransom. The Tribunal stated that it did not understand who these people who had kidnapped his brother were. The applicant responded that because of the high crime rates in Karachi there were agencies who would seek out criminals and then demand ransoms. His brother had been beaten by those who had kidnapped him. The applicant stated that one of his brother’s friends had informed these people about his brother’s whereabouts. The applicant stated this occurred in 2012.
Asked whether his brother ever came home the applicant sighed and responded he did, but they had to face so much shame because their brother was married, and his wife and her family came to the family home to abuse them. Their father was an honourable man, and it affected their family very much. In terms of his brother’s marriage, he also had children, but he was addicted to drugs and his friends were gangsters and it was a dangerous and volatile situation. His wife after trying to keep the family together separated from him and left for [Country].
The applicant when asked stated they paid the $300 to have his brother released but they had to beg his uncle to help because they were not in a financial situation to raise the funds themselves. They went to a specific location to hand over the money and only then his brother was released.
The Tribunal queried the applicant whether the private agents who had kidnapped his brother had any links to the police, and he responded they did not; they were separate.
They thought things would get better, but they did not. The applicant stated that he and his family had suffered serious shame on account of his brother’s membership of the mafia and people commented adversely on the family. Indeed, on one occasion the applicant stated he himself was nearly kidnapped, but he managed to escape. The Tribunal asked why the mafia wanted to kidnap him. The applicant replied that his father had sold the family home and was hiding the money, and his brother must have told his gang about the sale of their home, and they probably wanted to kidnap him to demand a large sum of money.
His brother was also jealous of him because his father had planned to send the applicant overseas to get away from the family’s difficulties. The Tribunal asked the applicant to provide the details of the kidnapping. He stated that he went out to a hotel/restaurant and was clean shaven and sensed that a group of people were fixated on him, and he sensed that something bad could happen. Two of them went out to their car of the type usually used for kidnappings. The applicant therefore pretended to be on his phone, but two men started following him out. He ran as fast as he could and ran into their house which was close by. His father told him that he should not go out alone at night. The applicant stated he had not told the Department about this incident because he forgot things and was not able to focus on all the events that had occurred to him because of his mental health struggles.
The Tribunal asked whether he had told his psychologist about this kidnapping incident, and he confirmed this was the case.
The applicant stated that as a result he suffered from anxiety and could not sit still and had many thoughts running in his head at the same time. He stated that he had been prescribed medication. He had now stopped taking medication because he did not want to be addicted and thought he needed to face his fears about the future. Moreover, on the medication he had felt drowsy and sleepy.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claimed threats he had received. He stated that in 2014 the police went to their home and asked about his brother because he and his gangs had been involved in burglaries and other crimes. The police treated his father badly during questioning about the applicant’s brother, [Mr A], and the applicant confronted the police. The police in Pakistan could be brutal and if you did not belong to a rich or well-connected family they treated you badly. He was trying to protect his father but was hit by the police.
The applicant’s brother’s friends would always taunt him to go and join their gangs as well, but the applicant refused, and they hurt and threatened him.
The Tribunal asked where his brother was currently, and he responded that his brother did not have a permanent residence. He came home principally because his mother, despite the problems he had caused, wanted to see him. The applicant stated he had not even returned to Pakistan to his father’s funeral because of the threats he had received there. Missing his father’s funeral was one of the biggest regrets of his life.
The Tribunal noted that these events as claimed had occurred a long time ago so who would hurt him now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on return to Pakistan. The applicant stated the situation continued to be the same. His mother begs him to take her away from there because of the situation with his brother, and because she has no money. Again, the Tribunal asked the applicant who specifically would threaten him on return to Pakistan and he stated that his brother always harassed his mother for sending the applicant away to Australia and considered wrongly that the applicant had a lot of money. His brother’s friends threatened his mother for money. The applicant also received threatening messages from his brother in Australia to send money, but he stated he had deleted those messages because even looking at them made him feel fearful. They would attend his mother’s home because she was a widow and alone, and his brother and his associates threatened her for money and she in turn would call the applicant to give her some money to hand over to his brother.
The applicant stated he would be subject of threats and intimidation if he returned now or in the reasonably foreseeable future as they had had to move to a very poor area after selling the family home, and he could still be kidnapped. Those people were still around.
The applicant stated he moved from Melbourne to Canberra because he was treated badly by his co-nationals in Melbourne who tried to use his passport falsely and he had suffered trauma there also. He was much better in Canberra.
The applicant stated that he also had different beliefs and people opposed his views and opinions when he went to the mosque. The applicant stated he was a humanist first. He was against jihad and those extreme views. The applicant stated that there were religious extremists, and crime was high, and he would look like a different creature, and it would not be safe for someone like him to live in Pakistan. People judged him and honour killings happened all the time. People were generally ignorant, and they could target you for blasphemy if you did not think like them.
The Tribunal asked why the applicant could not move to another area of Pakistan to avoid the harm he claims he feared. The applicant responded that the government was corrupt, social services did not exist and he had only his [Age]-year-old mother, and where could he take her. He had no money.
The applicant was frightened to return to Pakistan because of the network that his brother belonged to which extended beyond Karachi. Once they had targeted his uncle in another area of Pakistan. He was concerned he would be kidnapped and forced to join the gang, and his friends were waiting for him to return because they thought he had made riches in Australia given the length of time he had been away, even though they were not aware of his economic hardship in Australia.
The applicant stated that one of the reasons his studies ended was because he was concerned about his father’s illness, and his brother used all his father’s money so the applicant could not continue to study at the same level. His father was so traumatised due to his brother’s conduct and the applicant attributes his father’s illness and ultimate death due to the stress of dealing with his brother’s situation. The applicant was in Australia and could not protect his parents and this also caused him grief. The applicant stated that he took longer to lodge a protection visa because he was suffering with mental health problems and in Melbourne people were trying to take advantage of him.
The applicant stated his student visa had been cancelled and he had appealed at the AAT but was unsuccessful.
Evidence submitted at time of review
·Government of Pakistan, National Database and Registration Authority, Family Registration Certificate for the applicant demonstrating he is the [brother] of [Mr A], issued [in] March 2013.
·A document from the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, [Zone] Sindh Karachi, dated [August] 2025, certifying that the applicant and [Mr A] were the sons of their mother.
·Death certificate for the applicant’s father, with date of death, [November] 2021, with name and identifying details as set out in the Family Registration Certificate.
·Statement from the applicant’s mother translated (unclear by who) indicating that in 2012 when the applicant went out to a restaurant not far from their apartment for dinner, he was sitting eating alone when he noticed 8 to 10 people come into the establishment trying to unsettle the applicant by staring at him. Two of the men went close to the applicant and he noticed a white [car] parked outside indicating there was some danger and he could have been kidnapped. The applicant’s mother states that the applicant left the premises, and two men gave chase, but the applicant outran them and escaped, adding, “I still believe this act is done by his brother and his friends because that time we sold our house to send him Australia for a bright future”.
·Statement from clinical psychologist, dated 14 August 2025, stating the applicant had consulted her for assessment and treatment since 2018 referring to the applicant seeking protection due to personal and familial issues in Pakistan that have caused ongoing fear for his safety and, “I am aware of a situation he experienced in 2012 where he was close to being kidnapped by a group of men whilst he was in a restaurant in Pakistan. [The applicant] has reason to believe that the men who attempted to kidnap him with were associated with his brother’s criminal connections He has reported that this situation has resulted in ongoing symptoms of trauma for him, including hypervigilance, intrusive memories of the event, persistent fears for his safety and chronic feelings of panic”.
·Medical evidence of the applicant being treated for anxiety and depression during and post his studies in Australia.
·Police report dated [April] 2024, demonstrating that the applicant’s brother, was “caught red-handed while selling drugs and four people along with the accused and those who were buying drugs from the accused at the spot…the accused [Mr A] son of [Mr B] has been arrested 3 times in the past for such crimes. Ice was recovered from the accused at the scene…”
·Another police report has been submitted as evidence, dated [August] 2020, indicating that the applicant’s brother was found selling illegal drugs and that due to his non-cooperation, private witnesses and employees were appointed as witnesses. Hashish was found on his person. He was arrested and a further search was conducted with the cash amount of Rs 300 having been found in the pocket of the bag he was wearing.
·Further police report, dated [May] 2016, referring to [Mr A] as the accused being arrested for being in possession of heroin.
·Another report dated [February] 2014, regarding the capture and search of the applicant’s brother and associates at a check point, whereupon 22 mobile phones were recovered from the suspects, including drugs from the applicant’s brother.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for 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 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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether Australia owes the applicant protection obligations under the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
Based on the evidence before it the Tribunal is satisfied and accepts that the applicant has a brother in Pakistan, called [Mr A], who has a criminal record for dealing in drugs. The Tribunal also accepts that unfortunately consistent with persons involved in criminal enterprises and who are drug dependant themselves, the applicant’s brother wreaked havoc, financial and emotional on his family, as a result of his circumstances. The Tribunal found his narrative about his family circumstances credible, and he was able to provide realistic detail without prompting.
When the applicant’s student visa was cancelled in 2017 for not maintaining enrolment at the same level or higher, he appealed to the AAT explaining that he was suffering significant mental health issues and set out his family circumstances which were causing him grief and anxiety because his mother and father were dealing with the fall out of his brother’s conduct on their own, after the applicant had been sent to Australia to shield him from the problems. His evidence provided to the AAT (as set out in the decision) at that time referred to his difficulties in Pakistan caused by his brother and the mental health problems that ensued.
The Tribunal notes that across several statements to the Tribunal and the Department his claims have remained fairly consistent. While he had not mentioned at the time of application that he suspected he was the subject of a planned kidnapping, the Tribunal accepts the applicant narrated these matters to his treating psychologist who has knowledge of the applicant’s circumstances since 2018, prior to the Tribunal hearing. The applicant’s mother’s statement also confirms the applicant’s statement about this incident in 2012, when he thinks he was being targeted for kidnapping. The Tribunal has no reason not to accept that these events involving the attempted kidnapping are not genuine and accepts that the applicant genuinely feared for his life at that stage.
The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant’s brother was kidnapped for a ransom by agents not related to the government and beaten by them because he was a known criminal.
The Tribunal finds on the strength of the evidence submitted at the time of review that the applicant experienced the events he claims he did in Pakistan in the past as claimed. As the real chance test is future focussed, however, the Tribunal is required to assess whether there is a real chance that on return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm at the hands of his brother, gangs, criminal networks, the police or others in the community, and the State including for his religious outlook.
The applicant is claiming that were he to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future he would continue to face serious harm, including threats and violence, at the hands of his brother, his brother’s criminal associates and the underworld generally, and the State and the community due to his religious beliefs because:
·his brother and his associates are constantly seeking money for their drug enterprises and the applicant would be perceived by them as being wealthy, having been in Australia for eleven years.
·his brother and his associates also use violence to achieve their ends.
·they would again attempt to recruit him in their criminal activities against his will.
·the applicant’s brother and his associates will cause him serious harm because his brother is jealous of the applicant having had the opportunity to study abroad and because his parents sold their property to enable the applicant to be able to escape.
·the applicant is an apostate and does not adhere to the Islamic belief system and does not dress and conduct himself according to this belief.
·the applicant has been suffering serious mental health issues which detracted from his studies as a result of his family’s difficulties arising with his brother’s membership of a criminal network.
The applicant also claims that the law enforcement agencies in Pakistan could impute him with the same criminal attitudes and lifestyle adhered to by his brother.
Some of the issues raised by the applicant could be seen to fall in the sphere of “the personal”, such as his brother’s jealousy of him and because he was seen as the favoured son by the applicant’s parents because he was “clean”. The applicant has also placed himself in danger with the law enforcement authorities in Pakistan on the basis that he sees himself as his parents’ protector (albeit his father is now deceased).
The applicant’s brother’s violence and intimidation and exploitation regarding extraction of money to support his drug habits are also personal matters, whose victims the Migration Act and the Refugees Convention might not have contemplated as being within the sphere of the definition of a refugee. The scourge of the use of ice in particular, and its consequences for society, is not confined to Pakistan but is a reality faced by persons even in highly westernised countries, and families worldwide deal with the consequences.
Country information shows:
Although there are no official statistics, health professionals in the South Asian nation of some 240 million warn that addiction to crystal meth is soaring.

The spike has been most visible in the restive northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which borders Afghanistan, a major supplier of meth in the region.

Saba Khan, who runs Rokhana Saba, said her rehabilitation center in the northwestern city of Charsadda is nearly at full capacity, providing treatment for 80 people.

"Around 85 percent of people getting treatment at my center are ice addicts," she told Radio Mashaal. "They are mostly young people."

Khan said a "large number of university students" are using meth. "When they take a dose, they stay awake for 24 to 48 hours. So students use it to study."

Meth is a highly addictive stimulant that can be injected, snorted, smoked, or ingested orally. Health experts say users get a "euphoric high" that can last from minutes to several hours. Meth abuse can lead to anxiety, insomnia, and violent behavior, according to experts.
….
Pakistan has failed to stop the flow of illicit drugs from Afghanistan, and the lax enforcement of its anti-narcotics laws have allowed the drug trade to thrive, experts said.

"The investigation procedures are weak and the courts release drug smugglers," said Azlan Aslam, an officer at the Excise, Taxation, and Narcotics Control Department in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

"Due to judicial leniency, a drug smuggler can easily get bail," Aslam told Radio Mashaal. "They get released without being properly punished."

The authorities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa earlier this month launched an awareness campaign to tackle what they said was the drug epidemic in the province.

[1] Crystal Meth addiction ‘rapidly spreading’ in Pakistan’ by Daud Khattak and Frud Bezhan, 20 May 2023, RadioFreeEurope RadioLiberty, Pakistan, Crystal Meth Addiction 'Rapidly Spreading' In Pakistan.
"I don't think the government can control this only by using the police force," said Khan of the Rokhana Saba rehabilitation center. "There is [also] a need for awareness in society."[1]
On the other hand, the evidence leads the Tribunal to accept that the applicant’s difficulties with his brother and his brother’s criminal associates bring him within the membership of a particular social group, “brother of a drug trafficker with potent associates who are seen as mafia figures in Pakistan” and these are not personal matters as they relate to the actions of the State in protecting people or omitting to protect them.
The police reports demonstrate that the applicant’s brother is not just a sole drug user who has a record of coming to the attention of the police in Pakistan in the remote past due to such drug use. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s brother has come to the attention of the police in Pakistan as recently as 2024 and was allegedly caught with a quantity of ice for trafficking in his possession. The applicant’s brother’s circumstances have therefore not changed since the applicant departed Pakistan and there is no evidence that the applicant’s brother has been successfully treated for his problems with the law, his drug trafficking, and drug abuse, despite the applicant’s parents’ best efforts.
The evidence instead seems to demonstrate that the applicant’s brother is part of organised criminal networks who are taking advantage of the rise of the demand for drug use in Pakistan. The applicant referred to his brother being part of a drug “mafia” to express the fact that his brother was not using or dealing on his own but was part of a wider group entrenched in criminal activity. While the police dealt with the applicant and his associates on a case-by-case basis, they had not over the years appeared to deal with the overarching criminal structures by, for example, using sophisticated methods such as following money trails, or preventing the introduction of highly addictive drugs at the source; being Afghanistan in most cases.
The country information shows that the situation in terms of the drug problem in Pakistan and law enforcement is complex.
Pakistan has become a leading transit point for drug trafficking due to its proximity to Afghanistan. The country has also experienced high rates of addiction and domestic demand for heroin, making it a destination country for the drug trade. Since the Taliban took over Afghanistan, there has been an increase in heroin seizures. The COVID-19 pandemic did little to disrupt heroin manufacturing and trafficking: shipments trafficked via Pakistan were less frequent but larger in volume. There have also been reports of heroin transiting through Pakistan to other parts of South Asia, as well as to Eastern- and Southern Africa.
…
Pakistan is a significant player in the global cannabis trade, serving as both a source and transit country. Cannabis consumption is widespread and socially acceptable in the country. A substantial amount of cannabis is believed to be grown in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region; the Tirah Valley in particular is known for producing high quality cannabis. While armed groups in the region rely financially on cannabis cultivation and distribution, domestic cultivation has reportedly declined in recent years. Pakistan has one of the world’s highest cannabis seizure rates. Pakistan has become a destination country for synthetic drugs, which are increasingly popular among younger generations. Methamphetamine is largely sourced from Afghanistan; the use of the local ephedra plant as a starting material for its manufacture has resulted in greater proportions of the drug transiting through Pakistan. There has also been a rise in production of crystal methamphetamine, particularly in Peshawar and Karachi. The COVID-19 pandemic did not disrupt the supply of synthetic drugs in the region: there are reports of K-tablets, a drug containing both methamphetamines and opioids, being produced in Peshawar, Pakistan, and trafficked to Afghanistan.
….
State corruption related to criminal markets is a considerable problem in the country: political parties and politicians reportedly form relationships with gangs to influence political process, mostly at the provincial level. Accusations of embezzlement, levelled at politicians and military leaders, are commonplace. There are also allegations of military officials being complicit in certain criminal markets, including drug trafficking.
Criminal networks in Pakistan are also prevalent. These networks engage in various markets such as human smuggling, illegal logging and fauna crimes; they are also involved in human smuggling in Balochistan. In major urban centres, unorganized criminal gangs engage in extortion, kidnapping and fraud. The lack of information about these actors makes it difficult to determine the extent of their operations, but there are likely transnational links to foreign criminal networks, especially in human smuggling. Pakistan also has a notable presence of mafia-style groups that engage in criminal activities, such as heroin trafficking, non-renewable resource crimes, flora crimes, racketeering and extortion. These groups hold considerable sway in areas like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Karachi. They have influence over political decisions before and after elections, as well as the prison system. With the blurring of actor categories between terrorist, mafia and political groups, coupled with the widespread availability of firearms, mafia-style crime remains a serious issue.
….
Pakistan’s judicial system is plagued by inefficiency and corruption, with political and military influences often exerting undue pressure on the courts. The judiciary is widely perceived to be corrupt, ranking as the second-most corrupt institution in the country. Pakistan lacks dedicated courts for addressing organized crime. Conviction rates for human trafficking cases are low as a result, but also because prosecutors are overburdened and judges lack adequate training. The country’s prison system is heavily criticized for overcrowding, for being understaffed, and for its lack of medical facilities. Prisons are more punitive than rehabilitative: inmates are often subjected to physical beatings and torture. Different types of offenders are often mixed, which is problematic especially for those linked to organized crime and violent extremist organizations. In prison, these individuals can easily recruit and radicalize new members. The police force is widely regarded as the most corrupt institution in Pakistan. Political interference and a lack of operational autonomy are cited as key factors. Despite various efforts, law enforcement agencies struggle to combat organized crime due to a shortage of resources, the investigating agencies’ limited understanding of the syndicates involved, and a lack of a comprehensive combat strategy. Additionally, official complicity in human trafficking remains an ongoing concern.
…
[2] ‘Global Organised Crime Index, Pakistan, Global Initiative Against Organized Crime, 2023, ocindex_profile_pakistan_2023.pdf.
The Pakistani government has made efforts to increase identification and support for trafficking victims. However, support services are still lacking in many regions, particularly for male victims, and the quality of victim care is often low. This puts victims at risk of being targeted again or returning to their exploitative situation. Pakistan meets few of the mechanisms identified to support victims exiting modern slavery, and witnesses are often unwilling to testify against their traffickers due to threats of violence against them and their families. In terms of prevention, law enforcement agencies in Pakistan have not adopted a strong preventive approach towards crime. While the response to organized crime tends to be heavy-handed, there is little trust in the police due to the partial application of laws. Pakistan’s drug treatment capacity is insufficient, with few clinics nationwide, and there is a need for more non-residential treatment options at provincial level. Moreover, labour inspectors lack training to identify trafficking and have insufficient funding to conduct inspections, with no standard procedures to refer possible cases to the police.[2]
Of concern also is information which shows that jihadism and drug trafficking pose as a combined threat to Pakistan’s social fabric.
There is a myriad of security concerns regarding external factors when it comes to Pakistan: India, Afghanistan, the Saudi Arabia-Iran split and the United States, to name a few. However, there are also two main concerns that come from within: jihadism and organized crime. They are interconnected but differ in many ways. The latter is frequently overlooked to focus on the former, but both have the capacity of affecting the country, internally and externally, as the effectiveness of dealing with them impacts the perception the international community has of Pakistan. While internally disrupting, these problems also have international reach, as such groups often export their activities, adversely affecting at a global scale. Therefore, international actors put so much pressure on Pakistan to control them. Historically, there has been much scepticism over the government’s ability, or even willingness to solve these risks.[3]
[3] ‘Pakistan: Jihadism and drug trafficking, the threats from within’, Universidad de Navarra, Global Affairs, . Global Affairs and Strategic Studies. Facultad de Derecho.
This connection between extremists such as the Taliban and drug trafficking has been confirmed by other country research.
In addition to cultivating poppies and protecting smugglers, the Taliban’s senior leadership directly engages in transporting narcotics across the Afghan Pakistani border. To reach Pakistan, the Taliban attacks government forces near the border to create diversions that allow its smugglers to slip across the border. High-ranking Taliban leaders are intimately involved in the drugs trade: the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Taliban’s shadow governor of Helmand in 2012 for owning heroin that moved from Pakistan through Iran to Turkey. Afghan security forces captured the shadow governor of neighboring Nimroz while he was escorting roughly one ton of opiates from Helmand into Nimroz. Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, who led the Taliban until U.S. forces killed him in a drone strike, used the vast funds from his narcotics empire to pave his succession to Mullah Omar.[4]
[4] ‘Guns, Drugs, and Thugs: Smuggling in the Golden Crescent’, Michael Watson, the International Affairs Review, Guns, Drugs, and Thugs: Smuggling in the Golden Crescent — THE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS REVIEW.
The Tribunal accepts, therefore, that the applicant’s brother is connected to “dangerous” people and that he will be threatened and targeted by his brother and criminal associates on return to Pakistan to either join their activities or will be subject of serious harm with violence and physical harm and harassment because of his brother’s need for money and involvement with criminal associates.
The country information makes it clear that the applicant cannot expect effective protection from the State which has proven ineffective against organised crime and is at times complicit in its illegal activities.
The Tribunal has also accepted that the applicant would be seen as an apostate in Pakistan on account of his anti-Islamic stance as he has conflated Islam with the views of Islamic extremists in Pakistan who view him as a Western sympathiser. The Tribunal notes that the delegate referred to Karachi residents embracing Western culture without difficulty. Yet the country information relied upon is outdated (2010-2014) and does not take into account the nexus between religious extremism and anti-Western sentiment, including blashphemy and more recent restrictions on free speech. Human Rights Watch states:
The government of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which took office after Pakistan’s general elections in February 2024, continued the previous government’s crackdown on free expression and civil society. Blasphemy-related violence against religious minorities, fostered in part by government persecution and discriminatory laws, intensified. Attacks by Islamist militants, targeting law enforcement officials and religious minorities, increased, killing dozens of people in 2024 and providing a pretext for Pakistani authorities to continue their campaign to oust Afghan refugees.
….
The Pakistani authorities enforced blasphemy law provisions that have provided a pretext for violence against religious minorities and left them vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and prosecution. Mob and vigilante attacks on people for alleged “blasphemy” killed four people; the government failed to hold the perpetrators accountable.
In June, a mob lynched a 36-year-old man after accusing him of committing blasphemy. The local police failed to intervene to protect the man. In two separate incidents in Umerkot, Sindh and in Quetta in September, police fatally shot two men accused of blasphemy. In September, a court sentenced Shagufta Kiran, a Christian woman, to death for allegedly sharing “blasphemous” material in a WhatsApp group.
Members of the Ahmadiyya religious community continue to be a major target for prosecutions under blasphemy laws and specific anti-Ahmadi legislation. Militant groups and the Islamist political party Tehreek-e-Labbaik (TLP) accused Ahmadis of “posing as Muslims.” Pakistan’s penal code also treats “posing as Muslims” as a criminal offense. In June, a mob of around 150 people attacked an Ahmadiyya place of worship in Kotli district and ransacked and damaged the building.[5]
[5] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2025, Pakistan Events of 2024, World Report 2025: Pakistan | Human Rights Watch.

While it is true that Shi’a Muslims as identified by the delegate are targeted for serious harm in Pakistan, those perceived as apostates (those converting religion or declaring themselves not of a religion), that is those that leave Islam are also targeted, even though unlike blasphemy, apostasy is not officially criminalised in Pakistan. An organisation called Ex-Muslims of North America has written about the way religious dissidents are viewed in Pakistan:
Pakistan is one of the most repressive countries in the world with regard to freedom of expression, including and especially religious freedom. Blasphemy (i.e. insults) against religion in general can result in imprisonment, while blasphemy against Islam carries the much harsher punishment of death. Both in terms of the aggressiveness with which the Islamic-conservative government prosecutes such cases, as well as the harshness of punishment, Pakistan remains one of the worst places on the planet to speak out against religion or religious fundamentalism.[6]
[6] Pakistan, Ex-Muslims of North America, Pakistan - exmuslim-persecution.
And while Pakistan does not have a death sentence for “apostasy”, it does for “blasphemy” and the threshold for blasphemy is low [7]:
For individual non-religious persons to speak out is uncommon, but those revealed or alleged to be non-religious tend to provoke swift condemnation, threats of violence, or criminal ‘blasphemy’ charges. Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law was strengthened earlier this year, and as well as providing grounds for legal convictions, has provided cover for vigilante violence. Those who have been accused of blasphemy have been burned to death, shot dead in courtrooms and hacked to death on the side of the road, among other forms of extrajudicial executions. Fear of reprisal as a result of “blasphemy” allegations leads many individuals to reach out to Humanists International for assistance each year. Amendments to the Official Secrets Act proposed this year, would give the country’s intelligence services a wide berth to detain, and raid the home of, any citizen without a warrant. They would bring electronic, unwritten communications under the law’s ambit. When coupled with the anti-blasphemy laws, it leaves Pakistan’s religious and belief minorities facing a precarious situation, where government officials can expressly target them without checks and balances. In July 2023, Pakistan introduced a last-minute resolution at the UN Human Rights Council on religious hatred. The resolution equates all acts of “desecration of sacred books and religious symbols” with manifestations of religious hatred. It also threatens a longstanding consensus on how to tackle religious intolerance in line with international law. This resolution passed, and in 2024, Pakistan attempted to table it for renewal, although it was eventually withdrawn.[8]
[7] ‘Death sentence for apostasy in a nearly a dozen countries’, referring to the Freedom of Thought Report 2021, see below. Death sentence for apostasy in nearly a dozen countries, report says | National Secular Society.
[8] ‘The Freedom of Thought Report 2024, Key Countries Edition, Humanists International, FOTR-PAGE.pdf
Even were the applicant to keep his anti-Muslim stance to himself (and the Migration Act states that an applicant can not be forced to conceal their views to avoid serious harm), his Western appearance and anti-Islam views, mean there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm on account of his religious (or anti-religious) views were he to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The delegate stated that the applicant did not make specific claims of having in the past been harmed on account of his religious views, however, given the views about those outside the Islamic religion, the applicant’s chances of serious harm are real and accentuated. This is particularly so as blasphemy laws could be a pretext for persecution. DFAT assesses:
3.75 Blasphemy laws were also often misused for personal gain or to settle vendettas, according to in-country sources. Religious minority groups stated they could not obtain a fair hearing in blasphemy cases because police did not listen to their complaints and lower courts were pressured by religious authorities to obtain convictions in blasphemy matters. As a result, religious minorities said false blasphemy allegations were filed against them with impunity, with no repercussions for the accuser. USCIRF reported in 2023 it found ‘many instances’ under which blasphemy allegations were used to settle personal vendettas, leading to acts of violence before charges could be drafted or presented to a court. USCIRF stated in most cases involving false blasphemy accusations, false accusations and acts of vigilante violence were not punished. According to NCJP, Pakistan has not made any serious attempt to reform the blasphemy law to prevent abuse nor taken steps to create any effective deterrent against false accusations. Women and girls who refuse religious conversion could be subject to false blasphemy accusations and violence (see also Forced conversion).
3.76 DFAT assesses people accused of blasphemy face a high risk of official discrimination on the basis of religion, which may take the form of arrest and detention, prosecution for religious offences, unfair trials and sentencing (including the death penalty) and inadequate state protection. DFAT assesses those accused of blasphemy face high risk of societal discrimination, including public denunciation, doxxing, physical violence, and being killed extrajudicially.[9]

62. It is not a leap to find that there is a real chance that the applicant’s Western outlook and anti-Islam views would place the applicant at risk of coming under the laws of blasphemy and facing official discrimination, including arrest and detention and inadequate state protection.
[9] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 30 April 2025, country-information-report-pakistan.pdf.

The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s additional claim that as someone returning from the West he would be perceived as wealthy and that on the basis of this characteristic alone, he would face a real chance of serious harm on return to Pakistan. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is the case and does not accept it. It is well-known that people travel to and from Pakistan to Western countries and this characteristic alone does not place the applicant at any greater chance of serious harm. Together with his other characteristics as someone who has a family connected to criminal networks in Pakistan, however, the chances of serious harm would be elevated.
While the applicant also fears general harm in Karachi because of the crime rate there, the real chance of harm is only relevant in so far as he is related to someone who can call on the resources of criminal networks at any time to cause serious harm to the applicant, over and above the ordinary person who might be subject of random crime.
The Tribunal also accepts the applicant has few life and work skills and would have nowhere but Karachi to live in order to protect his mother. The Tribunal does not consider in this case that the applicant would be able to move to another area of Pakistan, particularly where he would have no family and where the State would view his religious perspective as inimical to the Islamic religion.
As the Tribunal has found that the harm the applicant would face relates to all area of the receiving country as required by s5J(1)(c), and effective protection measures are not available to the applicant, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Date of hearing: 6 August 2025
Representative: Nil
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (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 family
For 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 family
For 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.
…