2306716 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1176

2306716 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1176 (24 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2306716
Tribunal:Senior Member G Cranwell
Date:24 March 2025

Place:Brisbane
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 24 March 2025 at 2:44pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – political opinion – supporter but not member of Muslim League – attended and organised meetings during university and held unofficial local position later – harassed and questioned by supporters of opposing party during return visit – returnee from Western country – applied for protection after temporary work visa cancelled some time after last re-entry – inconsistent claims and evidence – limited knowledge of party’s policies and no documented evidence – passage of time and party now in power – country information – members of family unit – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 359A, 367A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASE
Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
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 28 April 2023 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be nationals of Pakistan, applied for the visas on 5 August 2019.
The first named applicant (the applicant) appeared before the Tribunal on 17 March 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
The applicant’s claims for protection were set out in the protection visa application as follows:
I left my country intending to study in Australia. After completion of my studies I was able to apply for Temporary Work Skill Visa and was living a happy life with intention of returning to Pakistan in the near future. However, upon my last visit to Pakistan I was interrogated for my support of Pakistan Muslim League as the party is in turmoil at the moment and I had returned from Australia I was suspected for my support and warned that I could face jail for my support for the party without any charges being laid.
I feared for the first time in my life of being harmed and prosecuted by supporters of the opposition.
The second, third and fourth named applicants did not make their own claims for protection.
The applicant attended an interview with the primary decision-maker on 24 March 2023. The Tribunal has listened to a recording of that interview. Relevantly, the applicant described his “interrogation” during his last visit to Pakistan as follows:
·The interrogation took place in July 2018 while he was outside of his mother-in-law’s house doing some gardening. They stood around him and pushed him to the dark area of the street. It took around 30-35 minutes, or possibly longer.
·The applicant was asked why he was supporting the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (“PML-N”) agenda. He was asked to stop supporting the PML-N agenda, and warned that he and his family would be harmed if he did not stop. The interrogators also said that they knew he was from a foreign country and had good money.
·The applicant did not know the names of the people who interrogated him.
·His family did not know what was going on outside of the house. When he came back and they saw him, he looked so tired. They asked him what had happened.
·The applicant did not lodge a police report as he was scared he would be in more trouble.
During the interview, the applicant also referred to the PML-N’s yellow taxi cab and highway building policies.
Evidence before the Tribunal
At the hearing, the applicant confirmed his immigration history as set out in the primary decision as follows:
·The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] January 2011 as the holder of a student visa.
·The applicant returned to Pakistan between [October] 2014 and [November] 2014.
·The applicant was granted a Subclass 457 visa on 22 September 2015.
·The applicant returned to Pakistan between [October] 2016 and [November] 2016.
·The applicant returned to Pakistan between [March] 2018 and [June] 2018.
·The applicant’s Subclass 457 visa was cancelled on 1 August 2019.
·The applicant applied for a protection visa on 5 August 2019.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he feared if he returned to Pakistan. The applicant stated that he was a supporter of the PML-N. On his last visit to Pakistan, he was interrogated by people from the other party. He fears being put in jail as a supporter of the PML-N. The applicant held a valid visa to return to Australia. After his Subclass 457 visa was cancelled, he had no option but to apply for a protection visa.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when he had started supporting the PML-N. The applicant stated that he started supporting the PML-N when he was at university, in [Year] or [Year].
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he supported the PML-N. The applicant stated that they had very good ideas, and were working for the progress of the country.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was a member of the PML-N. The applicant stated that he was not a member.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what activities he engaged in as a supporter of the PML-N. The applicant stated that he arranged meetings. He took the message from leader to other people.
The Tribunal asked who attended these party meetings. The applicant stated that students, leaders, elected members and candidates attended the meetings.
The Tribunal asked whether these meetings could be characterised as student meetings at university, during which invited party officials canvassed support from students. The applicant stated that this was correct. The leaders and students were joined on the one platform.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when he finished university. The applicant stated in [Year] or [Year].
The Tribunal asked the applicant what activities he engaged in as a supporter of the PML-N after he finished university in [Year] or [Year]. The applicant stated that he was elected to be a “counsellor” in his town.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what the role of counsellor involved. The applicant stated that he did social work for the town. The leader would listen to his point of view.
The Tribunal asked the applicant who voted for the position of counsellor. The applicant stated that the public voted. It was a semi-government position.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when he served as a counsellor. The applicant stated that he served between 2001 and 2003 or 2004.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not mention his role as a counsellor before the primary decision was made. The applicant stated that it was not a proper post. It was not a party post or a government post. His role was to raise problems with the party leader.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he was elected. The applicant stated that the leader liked him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant who chose him to be a counsellor. The applicant stated that the public had a good view of him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was elected. The applicant stated that he was not elected.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was appointed as a counsellor by the leader on the basis that he was well regarded by the community. The applicant stated that this was the case.
The Tribunal again asked the applicant if there was a reason he did not mention his role as a counsellor before the primary decision was made. The applicant stated that a counsellor was not a post. He was just a supporter. He would convey the community’s views to the leader. He used the word supporter to encompass his role as a counsellor.
Later in the hearing, the Tribunal asked who in the leadership the applicant conveyed the community’s views to. The applicant stated that he communicated with one of the leader’s secretaries.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to provide the name of the secretary. The applicant stated that he did not know the secretary’s full name.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what activities he engaged in as a supporter of the PML-N after he ceased being a counsellor in 2003 or 2004. The applicant stated that he was in contact with other people. He arranged meetings with towns people.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when he stopped arranging meetings. The applicant stated that he stopped arranging meetings seven or eight years ago when he was in Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not join the PML-N given his claimed extensive involvement with the party. The applicant stated that he did not want to join before he had completed his education. Then he found better opportunities to stay in Australia.
The Tribunal noted that the PML-N website[1] contains an online form for joining the party. It requires only the completion of some basic details. The applicant stated that the internet was not widely available when he was at university.
[1] See Join PMLN – PMLN.
The Tribunal noted that a common attribute of political parties all over the world is that they are always looking for new members. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he could have joined the PML-N by completing a paper form, and the fact that he did not join the party might cause it to doubt whether he was a supporter of the party as claimed. The applicant stated that he wanted to focus on his studies, before joining the party.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the PLM-N’s policies. Firstly, it asked about the PML-N’s economic policies. The applicant stated that the party wanted to raise the employment rate. It introduced the yellow cab taxi scheme, which enabled young people to start small businesses.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the PML-N was philosophically in favour of free markets or government intervention in the economy. The applicant stated that it was in favour of government interventions. The people bring ideas to government, and the government implements the ideas.
The Tribunal read to the applicant the first sentence of the PML’s 2016 policy on agriculture and rural development:[2]
PML-N believes in free market economy and deregulation of all segments of economic order.
[2] PML-N, ‘Agriculture and Rural Development’, 11 September 2016 (Agricultural and Rural Development | PMLN Official). See also ‘Sharif poised to take over mess in Pakistan’, Reuters, 6 May 2013 (Sharif poised to take over mess in Pakistan | Reuters): “Sharif, who vows to bring in free market enterprise and ease economic controls …”; ‘Nawaz poised to form strong government after Pakistan poll’, Tribune, 12 May 2013 (Nawaz poised to form strong government after Pakistan poll): “Nawaz, who advocates free-market economics, is likely to pursue privatisation and deregulation …”.
The applicant stated that his knowledge was from a long time ago. He is not up-to-date on the current policies.
The Tribunal also asked the applicant whether the PML-N was generally in support of or opposed trade unions. The applicant stated that the PML supports trade unions.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that the PML-N was generally opposed to trade unions.[3] The applicant stated that political parties change their point of view. He has no idea about new things.
[3] See, eg, ‘A malevolent campaign by the Government of Punjab against trade unions’, International View Point, 12 April 2011 (A malevolent campaign by the Government of Punjab against trade unions - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine): “The Muslim League Nawaz has a record of anti-workers measures during the last three years. Any union formed during this period is (sic) has experienced some sort of victimization”; ‘Pakistan: Elections a win for the right’, Green Left, 19 May 2013 (Pakistan: Elections a win for the right | Green Left): “Trade unions will have a hard time under PMLN”.
Secondly, the Tribunal asked the applicant about the PML-N’s environmental policies. The applicant stated that he was not a big politician. He was not a member of the party. He has no idea.
Later in the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that the PML-N had established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1997,[4] while the applicant claimed he was an active supporter. The applicant stated that he forgot. It was a long time ago.
[4] See Environment - Forest, Wildlife & Environment Department Government of Gilgit-Baltistan.
Thirdly, the Tribunal asked the applicant about the PML-N’s foreign policy. The applicant stated the PML-N was in favour of good relations with all powers, and supported trade with China and other peoples.
Fourthly, the Tribunal asked the applicant about the PML-N’s nuclear policy. The applicant stated that the PML-N is looking for more productivity, such as in medicine and a strong army.
The Tribunal asked the applicant specifically about the PML-N’s policy on nuclear weapons. The applicant stated that the party wants to bring prosperity to the country.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that the PML-N authorised Pakistan’s first nuclear tests.[5] The applicant stated that he may have missed that part.
[5] ‘World fury at Pakistan’s nuclear tests’, BBC, 28 May 1998 (BBC ON THIS DAY | 28 | 1998: World fury at Pakistan's nuclear tests).
The Tribunal put to the applicant that his knowledge of PML-N policies was more limited than it would expect of a supporter with the level of involvement claimed by the applicant. The applicant stated that he is totally cut off from the party and fears for his life.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that his limited knowledge of PML policies might cause it to doubt whether he was a supporter of the party as claimed. The applicant stated that it was a long time ago, and he has put his family first.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that s 367A of the Act required it to draw an adverse credibility inference in relation to claims that were not raised before the primary decision was made, unless the applicant provides a reasonable explanation as to why the claim was not raised. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had an explanation was for not raising that he was a PML-N counsellor before the primary decision was made. The applicant stated that his role as a counsellor was as a communications person, communicating different views. A supporter means the same thing.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to describe the 2018 incident. The applicant stated that he was interrogated by unknown people.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when this interrogation occurred. The applicant stated that it occurred a couple of days or one week after he arrived in Pakistan. After this happened, he decided to return to Australia.
The Tribunal asked what happened. The applicant stated that he was inside the house. Someone called him from outside the house. He opened the door.
The Tribunal asked how many people were involved. The applicant stated that there were three or four people in the street.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his family were at home. The applicant stated that they were at home, and were looking at him through the front door. They could see what was happening through the front door. He subsequently stated that they could not see what was happening but could hear what was happening.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how long the incident went for. The applicant stated that it was very quick. It was all over in two or three minutes. The people left in a jeep, and the applicant returned inside and closed the door.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what was said during the interrogation. The applicant stated that he was told to stop supporting the PML-N.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why they wanted him to stop supporting the PML-N, when he had been in Australia for seven years from 2011 to 2018. The applicant stated that he would still do activities when he returned to Pakistan.
Using the procedure in s 359A of the Act, the Tribunal put to the applicant a number of apparent inconsistences between the evidence given by him during the interview with the primary decision-maker and the evidence given by him at the hearing. The Tribunal explained that these inconsistencies might cause it to doubt that the incident in 2018 occurred, which might in turn lead it to reject his claims for protection and affirm the decision under review.
The first inconsistency put by the Tribunal was that the applicant told the primary decision-maker that he was outside doing some gardening when he was approached. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he was inside with the door closed. The applicant was invited to comment.
The applicant stated that this occurred a long time ago. He does not remember all things. It is hard to remember everything correctly. He just remembers going outside and it started to happen.
The second inconsistency put by the Tribunal was that the applicant told the primary decision-maker that the incident went for 30-35 minutes, and possibly longer. At the hearing, the applicant stated that the incident was very quick, and went for two to three minutes. The applicant was invited to comment.
The applicant stated that the whole thing may have gone for 35 minutes, but the actual threats were only three to four minutes.
The third inconsistency put by the Tribunal was that the applicant told the primary decision-maker that his family were unaware of what had happened. At the hearing, the applicant stated that they could either see or hear through the front door what happened. The applicant was invited to comment.
The applicant stated that they knew he had been outside, but did not know exactly what had happened to him.
The fourth inconsistency put by the Tribunal was that the applicant told the primary decision-maker that the interrogators had said that he was from a foreign country and had good money. At the hearing, the applicant did not mention this. The applicant was invited to comment.
The applicant stated that everyone knows that living in Australia allows him to work and earn good money.
The Tribunal reiterated to the applicant that the apparent inconsistencies might cause it to doubt that the incident in 2018 occurred, which might in turn lead it to reject his claims for protection and affirm the decision under review. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make any further comments he may wish to.
The applicant stated that it happened a long time ago. It is hard to remember word for word or scene by scene what occurred.
The Tribunal asked the applicant who the current Prime Minister of Pakistan was, and what political party he represented. The applicant stated the current Prime Minister is Shehbaz Sharif, and he is from the PML-N.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he considered his risk of being jailed for supporting the PML-N was reduced now that the PML-N was in power. The applicant stated that the PML-N leader (Nawaz Sharif) is in the United Kingdom, and has not come back to Pakistan due to the risk.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he delayed over a year, from his return from Pakistan in June 2018 until August 2019, before making a protection visa application. The applicant stated that he was looking for good opportunities. He could not think properly. He ran out of time, and found information about a protection visa.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that his delay in seeking protection might cause it to doubt whether the 2018 incident took place. The applicant stated that he was trying to get good opportunities to lawfully live in Australia. He found information about a protection visa on the internet.

The Tribunal noted that it had been seven years since he had returned to Australia from Pakistan, between 2018 and 2025, and asked the applicant why the people who interrogated him would still be interested in him after this time. The applicant stated that when supporting political parties, people who do not support the party can think of you as the enemy. They recall everything that happened when they see you.
The Tribunal read the following passage from the DFAT Country Information Report – Pakistan (25 January 2022) (“DFAT Report”) to the applicant:[6]
Politically motivated violence has historically occurred across Pakistan, especially in Karachi and Balochistan, but has substantially reduced in recent years. The Pak Institute for Peace Studies Security Report listed four attacks on political leaders and workers in 2020, causing no fatalities and 39 injuries. Grenade and rocket attacks on PTI leaders in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa failed to kill their targets. A clash between PPP and Grand Democratic Alliance supporters in Masurji Wah in Sindh injured five.
[6] Para [3.72].
The Tribunal put to the applicant that this passage indicated that political violence was decreasing in Pakistan. The applicant stated that this was correct. However, animosities are passed down from generation to generation. The people who threatened him will remember and still want to harm him.
The Tribunal also read the following passage from the DFAT Report to the applicant:[7]
DFAT assesses that returnees to Pakistan do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination purely as a result of their attempt to migrate, or purely because they have lived in a Western country. Nevertheless, DFAT notes societal or official discrimination or violence can still occur due to the reason they attempted to migrate, or because of behaviour or opinions they displayed while living abroad.
[7] Para [ 5.31].
The Tribunal put to the applicant that this passage indicated that he was not at a significant risk of harm purely because he had been living in Australia. The applicant stated that people will know him, and try to harm him. The PML-N leader is still in the United Kingdom.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there is anyone from the PML-N who might be able to provide a letter of support attesting to his involvement in the party. The applicant stated that the timeframe is too big. Everything has changed, and he has no more contacts.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was anything else he wished to raise. The applicant stated that he has been living in Australia peacefully for 15 years, and would like to continue to live here.
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 Departmental file includes a copy of the applicant’s Pakistani passport. Given this and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that Pakistan is his country of nationality and also his receiving country for the purposes of the definition in s 5(1) and ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Act.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The applicant’s claims to satisfy the refugee criterion are based on his claims that he is a supporter of the PML-N, and that an incident occurred in 2018.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a supporter of the PML-N, in the sense of voting for the party at elections without being actively involved with the party. However, for the reasons which follows, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a supporter in the sense claimed by the applicant, namely that he arranged party meetings and that he was a counsellor.
Firstly, the applicant claimed that he arranged student meetings from [Year] or [Year], and later meetings of towns people from 2003 or 2004, to support the PML-N. He also claimed be appointed as a counsellor for the purpose of relaying community views to the party leadership between 2000 and 2003 or 2004. However, despite this claimed level of involvement, the applicant gave evidence that he never joined the PML-N as a member. The Tribunal considers it implausible that the applicant would have arranged meetings over the course of many years and, in particular, been appointed as a counsellor by the party leader without being a member of the PLM-N.
In this regard, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that he did not want to join the party until he finished his education, and wanted to focus on his studies. The applicant’s evidence was that he finished his university studies in [Year] or [Year], and continued his involvement with the PML-N for many years afterwards. Further, as noted by the Tribunal at the hearing, political parties the world over are always looking for new members. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may not have been able join using the internet [at that time], the Tribunal nevertheless considers that he would have been able to join the PML-N by completing a paper form.
Secondly, the applicant demonstrated little knowledge of PML-N policies at the hearing. In this regard:
·The applicant incorrectly answered a question about the PML-N’s philosophical position on free markets. He incorrectly stated that the PML-N was in favour of government intervention over free markets. This is a philosophical position, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that this position has changed over time.
·The applicant incorrectly answered a question about the PML-N’s position on trade unions. He incorrectly stated that the PML-N was in favour of trade unions when they were generally opposed to trade unions. This is a general position, and again there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that this position has changed over time.
·Until prompted by the Tribunal, the applicant appeared to be unaware of the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency by the PLM-N in 1997. This was a significant reform which occurred at a time when the applicant claims to have been a supporter of the party.
·Until prompted by the Tribunal, the applicant appeared to be unaware that the PML-N had ordered Pakistan’s first nuclear test in 1998. This was a highly publicised event which occurred at a time when the applicant claims to have been a supporter of the party.
For completeness, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant correctly referred to one of the PML-N’s policies at the hearing, namely the yellow taxi cab scheme, which was launched in 1992.[8] At the interview, the applicant also correctly referred to the PML-N’s highway building policy, with the National Highway Authority having been established in 1991.[9] The Tribunal notes that both of these policies pre-date the applicant’s claimed involvement with the party, at times when he would have been around [Age] or [Age] years of age. The applicant was also able to give a correct albeit vague answer on the party’s foreign policy.
[8] See ‘Yellow Cab Scheme Hits Financial Hurdles’, The Christian Science Monitor, 1 September 1993 (Yellow Cab Scheme Hits Financial Hurdles - CSMonitor.com).
[9] See National Highway Authority Act 1991 (Pak).
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that was he was active as a supporter of the party for a period of nearly 20 years. He stated that he commenced his activities as a supporter in [Year] or [Year], and continued to engage in these activities when he returned to Pakistan from Australia in at least 2014 and/or 2016. Nevertheless, the Tribunal adopted a cautious approach in testing the applicant’s knowledge, and confined itself to asking general questions of philosophical position or significant events which occurred during the time of the applicant’s claimed involvement with the party. Given the nature of its questions, the Tribunal therefore does not accept the applicant’s explanations that he was not up-to-date with current policies, or that his knowledge was from a long time ago. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant would have forgotten the general positions of the party if they reflected his personal own views, or that he would have forgotten significant events which took place during the period that he was an active supporter of the party.
Overall, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s answer to the question on environmental policies to be telling, namely that he was “not a big politician” and “not a member of the party”. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s knowledge of the policies of the PML-N was not consistent with the level of involvement with the party claimed by the applicant. In particular, the Tribunal finds it implausible that the applicant would have such a limited knowledge of PNL-N policy had he been involved in arranging meetings over many years and communicating community views to the party leadership.
Thirdly, the applicant gave confused and contradictory evidence as to the role of counsellor. Initially he stated that he was elected by the public. Later he stated that he was chosen by the leader. Initially he stated that the position of counsellor was a semi-government position. Later he stated it was not a party position and not a government position. The applicant was also unable to name the person in the leadership to whom he claimed to have communicated the community’s views.
Further, the applicant did not mention that he was a counsellor before the primary decision was made. The Tribunal finds it implausible that the applicant would have failed to raise that he held such a position in the PML-N with the primary decision-maker if in fact he held such a position. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that his role as counsellor was covered by stating that he was a supporter, when the applicant’s claims to have been a counsellor are plainly designed to elevate his profile above that of a mere supporter. The Tribunal considers that his claim to have been a counsellor is an embellishment of his earlier claims designed to strengthen his case after his protection visa application was refused. The Tribunal notes that this finding is consistent with the adverse credibility inference required in these circumstances by s 367A of the Act.
Fourthly, the applicant was unable to provide a letter of support from anyone in the PML-N attesting to his involvement with the party. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has been in Australia for over 14 years, the level of involvement with the party claimed by the applicant is such that he would have been known to many party members, including the leadership. Even acknowledging the difficulties in obtaining such evidence from Australia, the duration of the applicant’s claimed involvement in the PML-N, from [Year] or [Year] until at least 2014 and/or 2016, is such that the Tribunal considers it to be implausible that he would be unable to obtain a letter of support from a single party member.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s account of being a supporter of the PML-N, in the sense of arranging meetings and being a counsellor, to be completely lacking in credibility.
Further, the Tribunal does not accept that the 2018 incident occurred. The applicant’s account of the claimed incident as given to the primary decision-maker at the interview and the account given to the Tribunal at the hearing contain the following inconsistencies.
Firstly, the applicant told the primary decision-maker that he was outside doing some gardening when he was approached. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he was inside with the door closed. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that the event occurred a long time ago, and he cannot remember everything correctly. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the claimed incident occurred in 2018, it notes that the interview with the primary decision-maker occurred less than two years ago on 24 March 2023. The Tribunal would not have expected the applicant’s memory to deteriorate significantly between the time of the interview and the hearing.

100. Secondly, the applicant told the primary decision-maker that the incident went for 30-35 minutes, and possibly longer. At the hearing, the applicant stated that the incident was very quick, and went for two to three minutes. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that the actual threats took three or four minutes, but the whole incident took 30-35 minutes. The applicant’s evidence at the hearing was clear that the incident was very quick, and that it was two or three minutes between when he opened the door and when he returned to the house. There was no other part of the incident which could account for the remaining half an hour on the version provided by the applicant at the hearing.
101. Thirdly, the applicant told the primary decision-maker that his family were unaware of what had happened. At the hearing, the applicant stated that they could either see or hear through the front door what happened. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that his family knew he was outside, but did not know what was going on. The applicant’s evidence at the hearing was clear that they could hear what was going on, although he gave contradictory evidence as to whether they could also see what was going on.
102. Fourthly, the applicant told the primary decision-maker that the interrogators had said that he was form a foreign country and had good money. At the hearing, the applicant did not mention this. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he may be imputed as having good money due to living in Australia. However, this response from the applicant does not explain why he did not raise this as part of the incident in his evidence at the hearing.
103. In considering these inconsistencies, the Tribunal has taken into account the effects of trauma on memory.[10] However, the Tribunal does not consider that the inconsistencies in the applicant’s account of the 2018 incident are able to be explained by trauma alone. In the Tribunal’s view, the inconsistencies are so pervasive that they can only be explained the account having been invented by the applicant for the purposes of making a claim for protection.
[10] See, eg, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons, November 2018 at [94].
104. For completeness, the Tribunal notes that the applicant told the primary decision maker during the interview that the incident occurred in July 2018, which was after the applicant returned to Australia on 26 June 2018. This date was plainly provided by the applicant in error, and was not repeated at the hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal places no weight on this discrepancy.
105. The Tribunal also places no weight on the applicant’s delay in lodging a protection visa application for over a year after he returned from Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s explanation that he was looking for other opportunities to stay in Australia, and only lodged a protection visa application when the time for doing this ran out.
106. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s account of the 2018 incident to be completely lacking in credibility.
107. In summary, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a supporter of the PML-N in the sense of arranging meetings or being a counsellor. The Tribunal also does not accept that the 2018 incident occurred. Given that the Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant was a supporter of the PML-N in the sense of arranging meetings or being a counsellor in the past, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would not arrange meetings or be a counsellor if he were to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
108. However, the Tribunal does accept that the applicant was a supporter of the PML-N in the sense that he voted for the PML-N without being actively involved in the party. Given that the Tribunal has accepted that the applicant voted for the PML-N at elections without being actively involved in the party in the past, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would continue to vote for the PML-N at elections without being actively involved in the party if he were to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
109. The Tribunal will therefore assess the applicant’s claims only on the basis that he would continue to support the PML-N in the sense of voting for the party at elections without being actively involved in the party if he were to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal will also assess the applicant’s claims on the basis that he may be imputed as having good money due to living in Australia.
110. The Tribunal accepts that the current Prime Minister of Pakistan is Shehbaz Sharif, and he is from the PML-N. The Tribunal also accepts the country information set out above, that political violence in Pakistan has decreased in recent years. While the applicant claimed that Nawaz Sharif remains living in the United Kingdom, the Tribunal considers that the profile of Nawaz Sharif as the founder and former leader of the party is markedly different from the applicant and is not a valid comparison.[11] In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the risk of harm to the applicant in relation to voting for the PML-N without being actively involved in the party is remote. The Tribunal therefore finds that there is no real chance that the applicant would be harmed for voting for the PML-N without being actively involved in the party if he were to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.[12]

111. The Tribunal accepts the country information set out above, that returnees to Pakistan do not face a significant risk of societal violence or discrimination purely because they have lived in a Western country. As noted above, the Tribunal has accepted that the applicant may be imputed as having good money due to living in Australia. However, the Tribunal has not accepted that the 2018 incident took place, and therefore does not accept that the applicant has been threatened on this basis. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the risk of harm to the applicant in relation to having lived in Australia is remote. The Tribunal therefore finds that there is no real chance that the applicant would be harmed because he has lived in Australia if he were to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.[13]
112. After considering all of the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act if he were to return to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
113. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
114. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Pakistan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
[11] For completeness, the Tribunal places no weight on Nawaz Sharif’s return to Pakistan in 2023: ‘Pakistan’s ex-PM Nawaz Sharif returns from exile “completely ready” for election’, The Guardian, 21 October 2023 (Pakistan’s ex-PM Nawaz Sharif returns from exile ‘completely ready’ for election | Pakistan | The Guardian).
[12] See Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 389.
[13] Ibid.
CONCLUSIONS
115. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that any of the applicants satisfy s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

118. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants protection visas.
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.
…