DXM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2025] FedCFamC2G 765

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

DXM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 765

File number(s): ADG 363 of 2019
Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV
Date of judgment: 27 May 2025
Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of Immigration Assessment Authority – citizen of Pakistan – whether misapplication of real chance test – whether constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction by failure to consider relevant integers of applicant’s claimed risk of harm – whether country information misconstrued and reasoning illogical or irrational – whether jurisdictional error – writs issued.  
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5H, 473DC, 473DD, 473FB, 474, 476, 499
Cases cited:

AIE15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 610

AKH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 47; (2019) 269 FCR 168

AXD21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 912

BJO18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 189; (2020) 281 FCR 594

BSU20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 642

CEO19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCCA 1472

CGA15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 46; (2019) 268 FCR 362

Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1998) 169 CLR 379; (1989) 63 ALJR 561; (1989) 87 ALR 412

CID15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 780

CJE16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1663; (2019) 167 ALD 89

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 456; (1993) 43 FCR 280; (1993) 18 AAR 9; (1993) 115 ALR 1

CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146; (2016) 253 FCR 496; (2016) 70 AAR 413

CXS18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 18

DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 2; (2018) 258 FCR 175; (2018) 74 AAR 121; (2018) 353 ALR 641

DGB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1034

Domingos v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 864; (2021) 364 FLR 5

DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; (2021) 273 CLR 1; (2021) 95 ALJR 352; (2021) 388 ALR 363

Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; (2003) 197 ALR 389; (2003) 73 ALD 321

DVD18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 858

EMM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 1214; (2023) 384 FLR 148

Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802; (2001) 233 FCR 136; (2001) 194 ALR 244

Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151; (2018) 267 FCR 320; (2018) 362 ALR 48

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v…

Continue reading DXM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultu...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DXM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 765
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 765
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DXM19, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for a Significant Humanitarian Entry (SHE) Visa, which was refused. The Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) upheld the decision, leading DXM19 to seek judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether the Authority misapplied the real chance test by failing to consider relevant factors indicating DXM19's claimed risk of harm in Pakistan. DXM19 argued that the Authority misconstrued country information, resulting in illogical or irrational reasoning and a jurisdictional error. The court considered whether the Authority's decision was affected by jurisdictional error due to a failure to properly consider DXM19's claims and the relevant country information.

The court examined the Authority's application of the real chance test and its consideration of the country information provided. The Authority reviewed the DFAT report, which assessed a moderate risk of sectarian violence for Turis due to their Shia faith, and noted the absence of attacks against Turis in Kurram since the report's publication. The Authority also considered DXM19's personal circumstances, including his lack of involvement in militant groups or political activities and the safety of his family in Pakistan. The court found that the Authority had correctly applied the real chance test and adequately considered the country information, despite DXM19's assertions to the contrary. The Authority's conclusion that DXM19 did not face a real chance of harm in Pakistan was supported by the evidence, including the improved security situation and declining sectarian violence.

The court held that the Authority's decision was not affected by jurisdictional error. It correctly applied the real chance test, considered the relevant country information, and appropriately weighed DXM19's personal circumstances. The Authority's reasoning was logical and rational, and it had adequately addressed DXM19's claims and the evidence presented. The decision to affirm the Delegate's refusal of the SHE Visa was therefore upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

References to statutory provisions in these Reasons for Judgment are, unless otherwise indicated, references to the statutory provisions of the Migration Act, and to the provisions thereof as they were at the time of the Authority Decision.BACKGROUND The background to the making of the Authority Decision is as follows:(a)DXM19 is a citizen of Pakistan: CB 12;(b)on 30 August 2016 DXM19 completed an application for the SHE Visa which was received by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (“Department”) (now the Department of Home Affairs) on 14 October 2016 : CB 46-123;(c)on 18 October 2016 the wrote to DXM19 acknowledging his SHE Visa application: CB 124-133;(d)on 16 May 2019 the Department invited DXM19 to attend an interview before it on 30 May 2019 (“SHE Visa Interview”): CB 143-157;(e)on 6 June 2019 DXM19’s lawyer wrote to the Department attaching legal submissions (“Post SHE Visa Interview Submissions”): CB 178-223;(f)on 19 August 2019 the Delegate’s Decision was to refuse the SHE Visa: CB 224-243;(g)on 22 August 2019 the Authority wrote to DXM19 to advise that the Delegate’s Decision had been fast tracked for review by the Authority: CB 244;(h)on 12 September 2019 DXM19’s lawyers sent submissions to the Authority (“DXM19’s Authority Submissions”): CB 261-267;(i)on 26 September 2019 DXM19’s lawyers wrote to the Authority attaching a letter from a person in Parachinar, Kurram Agency, in support of DXM19’s review of the Delegate’s Decision: CB 268-271; and(j)on 1 October 2019 the Authority Decision was to affirm the Delegate’s Decision: CB 272-291.AUTHORITY DECISION In the Authority Decision the Authority:(a)noted as to DXM19’s Authority Submissions that:(i)in a number of respects, they did not comply with the Authority’s Practice Direction, despite DXM19 being provided a copy of that Practice Direction by the Authority and despite DXM19’s lawyer preparing DXM19’s Authority Submissions; (ii)the font size was less than 10 point and the margins were less than 2.54 centimetres;(iii)despite the above concerns, it had regard to the legal argument and other aspects of DXM19’s Authority Submissions that it did not consider to be new information;(iv)they did not identify which parts of DXM19’s Authority Submissions were new information as required by the Practice Direction although it was clear to the Authority that information was included which it considered to be new;(v)they did not explain why the new information could not have been given to the Department prior to the Delegate’s Decision being made or why it was credible personal information which was not previously known and may have affected consideration of DXM19’s claims, had it been known; and(vi)it cited new county information but did not provide a copy or extract of any of the information, despite this clearly and specifically being required by the Practice Direction, and that hyperlinks had been provided but this was a practice specifically identified in the Practice Direction as not acceptable, and on these bases decided not to accept the new information in DXM19’s Authority Submissions pursuant to ss 473DC(2) and 473FB(5);(b)was not satisfied there were exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information it identified in DXM19’s Authority Submissions as outlined below;(c)noted that DXM19’s Authority Submissions cite an article titled “Shia Pakistani Fighters in Syria” (“Shia Fighters Article”) which it considered to be new as it was not before the Delegate and that (according to DXM19’s Authority Submissions) refers to a brigade known to be made up of Turis and other Shia tribesman from Parachinar recruited by the Iranian government and who were active in the conflict in Syria in support of the Assad regime;(d)noted that DXM19’s Authority Submissions:(i)cited the Shia Fighters Article in support of its claim that Turis are perceived to be politically pro-Iranian because of their Shia faith and their willingness to fight in the Syrian conflict and that some sectarian militant groups have publicised an ongoing intention to target them for this reason;(ii)argued that the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (“DFAT”) 2019 report (“2019 DFAT Report”) (which is annexed to the Bakhtiar Affidavit) that was relied upon by the Delegate does not adequately assess the risk to this group given their perception as pro-Iranian; and(iii)did not make clear from the information in the Shia Fighters Article when it was published.(e)noted that DXM19’s lawyer:(i)prepared DXM19’s Authority Submissions, and made oral submissions at the end of the SHE Visa Interview in relation to Turi Shias being imputed as being pro-Iranian;(ii)prepared the detailed Post-SHE Visa Interview Submissions citing country information in support of DXM19’s claims; and(iii)included in DXM19’s Authority Submissions another report that refers to the targeting of Turis in Parachinar in 2017 for their alleged support of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria;(f)noted that the Delegate’s Decision acknowledged other country information sources which indicated that sectarian militant groups have publicised an ongoing intention to target Turi/Bangash tribesmen owing to their Shia faith and the fact that some tribesman are fighting in Iranian-backed militias in Syria, and that the Shia Fighters Article does not reflect anything new in this regard and nor did it refer to credible personal information;(g)noted that DXM19’s Authority Submissions:(i)referred to an undated article about Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (“LeJ Article” and “LeJ” respectively) which it considered to be new information and that the LeJ Article cited a new 2018 article by South Asian Voices (“South Asian Voices Article”) in support of its claim that “numerous reports” detail the significant presence of the LeJ network and the Tehrik-e-Taliban (“TTP”) in Punjab Province and Islamabad;(ii)included information about LeJ and TTP and was therefore not satisfied that the LeJ Article and the South Asian Voices Article could not have been provided to the Delegate and that it was also not apparent that they added anything further to the country information that was before the Delegate about these groups;(iii)claimed that Turis are at risk of state-based persecution due to perceived links to Iran with reports that officials are “disappearing” Shia with purported links to Iran. The Authority noted this claim and the South Asian Voices Article to be new information but that it was not evident why this claim or the South Asian Voices Article could not have been raised before the Delegate. The Authority noted:(A)DXM19 was given the opportunity to raise any further claims during his SHE Visa Interview before the Delegate and that DXM19 was legally represented before the Delegate and that DXM19’s Authority Submissions were prepared by his lawyer;(B)that DXM19 had provided little supporting evidence in relation to this alleged new fear as no extract or copy of the report which DXM19 seeks to rely on had been provided; and(C)the Shia Fighters Article refers to Shias being questioned about providing financial support to Iran or as to whether they had been involved in the Syrian conflict but DXM19 had not claimed to have been involved in these activities and had not made any further specific claims as to why he, in particular, would be suspected of being involved in such activities;(h)acknowledged there is a complex history that has affected the Turi community living in Kurram and accepted that Shia Turis in the area have been targeted by terrorist groups for various reasons in the past, but found that the improvements in security in DXM19’s home area have been significant as a result of ongoing security measures that have been adopted by the Pakistani Government;(i)noted the 2019 DFAT Report provided an assessment of a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups to Turis in Kurram in February 2019 and further noted that there have been no further attacks against Turis in Kurram since the 2019 DFAT Report had been published (seven months prior to the Authority Decision) and that DFAT also reports there have been no attacks in Parachinar since early 2017;(j)took into account DXM19’s evidence that he has not been associated with any Shia or Turi militant groups nor been involved in any political activities, and that he claimed his family still resides in his village and he had not claimed that his family came to any harm since DXM19 left Pakistan;(k)noted DXM19 had not claimed he would work as a taxi driver on return to Pakistan or that he feared harm for this reason but even if he did the country information does not support that he will face a real chance of harm;(l)having considered the evidence regarding the generally improved security situation in Pakistan, and in Kurram specifically, and declining levels of sectarian violence, and DXM19’s profile and experiences, was not satisfied DXM19 faced a real chance of any harm in Pakistan in the reasonably foreseeable future;(m)found DXM19 did not meet the requirements of the definition of “refugee” in s 5H(1);(n)did not accept DXM19’s claims of being targeted by the Taliban in 2011 and was not satisfied that he would face a real risk of significant harm in Pakistan; and(o)found there were not substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that DXM19 will suffer significant harm.JURISDICTIONAL ERROR

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The background to the making of the Authority Decision is as follows:(a)DXM19 is a citizen of Pakistan: CB 12;(b)on 30 August 2016 DXM19 completed an application for the SHE Visa which was received by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (“Department”) (now the Department of Home Affairs) on 14 October 2016 : CB 46-123;(c)on 18 October 2016 the wrote to DXM19 acknowledging his SHE Visa application: CB 124-133;(d)on 16 May 2019 the Department invited DXM19 to attend an interview before it on 30 May 2019 (“SHE Visa Interview”): CB 143-157;(e)on 6 June 2019 DXM19’s lawyer wrote to the Department attaching legal submissions (“Post SHE Visa Interview Submissions”): CB 178-223;(f)on 19 August 2019 the Delegate’s Decision was to refuse the SHE Visa: CB 224-243;(g)on 22 August 2019 the Authority wrote to DXM19 to advise that the Delegate’s Decision had been fast tracked for review by the Authority: CB 244;(h)on 12 September 2019 DXM19’s lawyers sent submissions to the Authority (“DXM19’s Authority Submissions”): CB 261-267;(i)on 26 September 2019 DXM19’s lawyers wrote to the Authority attaching a letter from a person in Parachinar, Kurram Agency, in support of DXM19’s review of the Delegate’s Decision: CB 268-271; and(j)on 1 October 2019 the Authority Decision was to affirm the Delegate’s Decision: CB 272-291.AUTHORITY DECISION In the Authority Decision the Authority:(a)noted as to DXM19’s Authority Submissions that:(i)in a number of respects, they did not comply with the Authority’s Practice Direction, despite DXM19 being provided a copy of that Practice Direction by the Authority and despite DXM19’s lawyer preparing DXM19’s Authority Submissions; (ii)the font size was less than 10 point and the margins were less than 2.54 centimetres;(iii)despite the above concerns, it had regard to the legal argument and other aspects of DXM19’s Authority Submissions that it did not consider to be new information;(iv)they did not identify which parts of DXM19’s Authority Submissions were new information as required by the Practice Direction although it was clear to the Authority that information was included which it considered to be new;(v)they did not explain why the new information could not have been given to the Department prior to the Delegate’s Decision being made or why it was credible personal information which was not previously known and may have affected consideration of DXM19’s claims, had it been known; and(vi)it cited new county information but did not provide a copy or extract of any of the information, despite this clearly and specifically being required by the Practice Direction, and that hyperlinks had been provided but this was a practice specifically identified in the Practice Direction as not acceptable, and on these bases decided not to accept the new information in DXM19’s Authority Submissions pursuant to ss 473DC(2) and 473FB(5);(b)was not satisfied there were exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information it identified in DXM19’s Authority Submissions as outlined below;(c)noted that DXM19’s Authority Submissions cite an article titled “Shia Pakistani Fighters in Syria” (“Shia Fighters Article”) which it considered to be new as it was not before the Delegate and that (according to DXM19’s Authority Submissions) refers to a brigade known to be made up of Turis and other Shia tribesman from Parachinar recruited by the Iranian government and who were active in the conflict in Syria in support of the Assad regime;(d)noted that DXM19’s Authority Submissions:(i)cited the Shia Fighters Article in support of its claim that Turis are perceived to be politically pro-Iranian because of their Shia faith and their willingness to fight in the Syrian conflict and that some sectarian militant groups have publicised an ongoing intention to target them for this reason;(ii)argued that the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (“DFAT”) 2019 report (“2019 DFAT Report”) (which is annexed to the Bakhtiar Affidavit) that was relied upon by the Delegate does not adequately assess the risk to this group given their perception as pro-Iranian; and(iii)did not make clear from the information in the Shia Fighters Article when it was published.(e)noted that DXM19’s lawyer:(i)prepared DXM19’s Authority Submissions, and made oral submissions at the end of the SHE Visa Interview in relation to Turi Shias being imputed as being pro-Iranian;(ii)prepared the detailed Post-SHE Visa Interview Submissions citing country information in support of DXM19’s claims; and(iii)included in DXM19’s Authority Submissions another report that refers to the targeting of Turis in Parachinar in 2017 for their alleged support of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria;(f)noted that the Delegate’s Decision acknowledged other country information sources which indicated that sectarian militant groups have publicised an ongoing intention to target Turi/Bangash tribesmen owing to their Shia faith and the fact that some tribesman are fighting in Iranian-backed militias in Syria, and that the Shia Fighters Article does not reflect anything new in this regard and nor did it refer to credible personal information;(g)noted that DXM19’s Authority Submissions:(i)referred to an undated article about Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (“LeJ Article” and “LeJ” respectively) which it considered to be new information and that the LeJ Article cited a new 2018 article by South Asian Voices (“South Asian Voices Article”) in support of its claim that “numerous reports” detail the significant presence of the LeJ network and the Tehrik-e-Taliban (“TTP”) in Punjab Province and Islamabad;(ii)included information about LeJ and TTP and was therefore not satisfied that the LeJ Article and the South Asian Voices Article could not have been provided to the Delegate and that it was also not apparent that they added anything further to the country information that was before the Delegate about these groups;(iii)claimed that Turis are at risk of state-based persecution due to perceived links to Iran with reports that officials are “disappearing” Shia with purported links to Iran. The Authority noted this claim and the South Asian Voices Article to be new information but that it was not evident why this claim or the South Asian Voices Article could not have been raised before the Delegate. The Authority noted:(A)DXM19 was given the opportunity to raise any further claims during his SHE Visa Interview before the Delegate and that DXM19 was legally represented before the Delegate and that DXM19’s Authority Submissions were prepared by his lawyer;(B)that DXM19 had provided little supporting evidence in relation to this alleged new fear as no extract or copy of the report which DXM19 seeks to rely on had been provided; and(C)the Shia Fighters Article refers to Shias being questioned about providing financial support to Iran or as to whether they had been involved in the Syrian conflict but DXM19 had not claimed to have been involved in these activities and had not made any further specific claims as to why he, in particular, would be suspected of being involved in such activities;(h)acknowledged there is a complex history that has affected the Turi community living in Kurram and accepted that Shia Turis in the area have been targeted by terrorist groups for various reasons in the past, but found that the improvements in security in DXM19’s home area have been significant as a result of ongoing security measures that have been adopted by the Pakistani Government;(i)noted the 2019 DFAT Report provided an assessment of a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups to Turis in Kurram in February 2019 and further noted that there have been no further attacks against Turis in Kurram since the 2019 DFAT Report had been published (seven months prior to the Authority Decision) and that DFAT also reports there have been no attacks in Parachinar since early 2017;(j)took into account DXM19’s evidence that he has not been associated with any Shia or Turi militant groups nor been involved in any political activities, and that he claimed his family still resides in his village and he had not claimed that his family came to any harm since DXM19 left Pakistan;(k)noted DXM19 had not claimed he would work as a taxi driver on return to Pakistan or that he feared harm for this reason but even if he did the country information does not support that he will face a real chance of harm;(l)having considered the evidence regarding the generally improved security situation in Pakistan, and in Kurram specifically, and declining levels of sectarian violence, and DXM19’s profile and experiences, was not satisfied DXM19 faced a real chance of any harm in Pakistan in the reasonably foreseeable future;(m)found DXM19 did not meet the requirements of the definition of “refugee” in s 5H(1);(n)did not accept DXM19’s claims of being targeted by the Taliban in 2011 and was not satisfied that he would face a real risk of significant harm in Pakistan; and(o)found there were not substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that DXM19 will suffer significant harm.JURISDICTIONAL ERROR

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

As to ground 1 the Minister submitted that:(a)the Authority considered the history of the conflict affecting Turi Shias in Parachinar over time: the Authority recognised that there has been a “complex history” affecting Turi Shias in that area. That was an orthodox approach. Indeed, it was an approach which DXM19 urged the Authority to take. DXM19 submitted: “We urge the [Authority] to take into account the cyclical nature of the violence in Pakistan when making an assessment as to the future risk of harm to the applicant or someone of his profile”: CB 264, see also CB 285 at [26]. But consideration of this history of conflict, and recent improvements, did not result in the Authority failing to correctly apply the “real chance” test: CJE16 at [34] per Anderson J. Rather, the Authority correctly applied the “real chance” test, in an “absolute” sense: see the terminology used in CJE16 at [29] per Anderson J, throughout the Authority Decision in that the Authority:(i)had regard to country information to the effect that “normal life” was returning to the region: CB 284 at [22];(ii)had regard to the 2019 DFAT Report assessment that Turis in Kurram “still face a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups because of their Shia faith”: CB 285 at [25]. An assessment by DFAT that there is a “moderate risk” of some form of violence does not necessitate a finding that there is a real chance of harm: BJO18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 189; (2020) 281 FCR 594 at [125] per Murphy J; DVD18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 858 at [37] per Judge Laing;(iii)in reliance on DFAT’s assessment, further noted that there had been “no further attacks against Turis in Kurram” since the 2019 DFAT Report was published and “no attacks in Parachinar since early 2017”: CB 285 at [26]; and(iv)expressed a conclusion that it was “not satisfied … [DXM19] would face a real chance of any harm in Pakistan in the reasonably foreseeable future”, which is a formulation that, in terms, correctly states the test: CB 286 at [33]; and(b)in those circumstances, the Court should not infer that the Authority failed to assess whether DXM19 faced a real chance of harm upon return to Parachinar in an absolute sense. It was not necessary for the Authority to make a finding that the risk of harm was “remote”. Indeed, the Full Court of the Federal Court has recognised that “[r]eaching too readily for the label ‘remote’ as a descriptor of risk may lead to error”: AKH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 47; (2019) 269 FCR 168 at [46] per Middleton and Mortimer JJ.Consideration – ground 1 In the Authority Decision at CB 285-286 at [25]-[30] the Authority found that:25.DFAT’s most recent report published in February 2019 acknowledges a trend of decreased reports of attacks against Turis in 2018 due to the improved security situation in Parachinar and Kurram and the overall declining trend in sectarian violence since 2014 in Pakistan. It further states that while this trend is likely to continue in 2019, attacks and violence against Turis can, and may still occur and Shias continue to face a threat from anti-Shia militant groups. DFAT ultimately assessed that Turis in Kurram still face a moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups because of their Shia faith.26.There is a complex history that has affected the Kurram and the Turi community living there and I accept that the Shia Turis in the area have been targeted by terrorist groups for various reasons in the past. It has been argued that the situation remains fluid and the nature of violence in Pakistan is cyclical, however, I find the improvements in security in the applicant’s area of Upper Kurram have been significant as a result of the ongoing security measures that have been adopted by the Pakistani government. DFAT provided an assessment of moderate risk of sectarian violence from militant groups to Turis in Kurram in February 2019. However, I note that there have been no further attacks against Turis in Kurram since that report was published seven months ago and DFAT also reports that there have been no attacks in Parachinar since early 2017. I have also taken into account the applicant’s evidence that he has not been associated with any Shia or Turi militant groups nor been involved in any political activities. He has claimed that his family still reside in his village and has not claimed they have come to any harm since he left Pakistan.27.The applicant provided evidence that he practised his Shia faith in Pakistan and in Australia by attending religious celebrations such as Muharram and Ashura in Parachinar, attending Friday prayer and fasting during Ramadan. I accept he will continue to do so, on return to Pakistan. He comes from a majority Shia area and has not claimed that he will be prevented from practising his religion. DFAT has stated that Shia are most vulnerable during large gatherings, such as Ashura processions but recent reports indicate that Shias in Parachinar have been able to commemorate these occasions without incident since October 2017.28.DFAT further noted Turis … face [a] similar risk of official discrimination as other Pashtuns based on ethnicity and no additional risk of official discrimination based on their religion. It assessed that Pashtuns in Pashtun majority areas or locations where individuals have family or social connections face a low risk of official discrimination. It also states, according to the media, discrimination and violence towards Shia Tribes, particularly Turis, remains significant in Kurram Agency due to state concerns regarding Iranian influence and greater presence of Taliban and Al Qaeda. It does not provide any further detail about the source of this information nor the form of the alleged discrimination and the agents of this harm. I note the applicant is from a majority Turi Shia (Pashtun) area and did not claim to have faced discrimination in the past on this basis.29.I have also considered the applicant’s journey back to Parachinar in assessing whether he has a well-founded fear of persecution. Country information before me indicates that Shia Turis from Upper Kurram can only access Peshawar (the closest major Pakistan city) via the Thal-Parachinar road which passes through Sunni-dominated Lower Kurram. In 2016, DFAT indicated that the Thal-Parachinar Road remained open and there had been no major security incidents on the road in 2015. Federal security forces maintained armed checkpoints along the road, which is used by both civilian and military vehicles. In its 2019 report, it stated that Turis reported significantly fewer road attacks in 2018, as military operations have forced militants into the mountains. I accept that the applicant will likely return to his home village via the Thal-Parachinar Road to get to Parachinar but there are no recent reports of attacks against Turis on this road. Further, the applicant claimed to have travelled to Peshawar in 2010 to obtain his passport and claims he took the main road through Thal as the road “was a little bit better”. He then travelled to Peshawar again when he last departed Pakistan in 2012 and then travelled onwards to Islamabad in order to fly from the airport there. He did not claim to have come to any harm during those trips.30.The applicant has not claimed that he would work as a taxi driver on return to Pakistan or feared harm for this reason, but even if he did, the above country information does not support that he will face a real chance of harm.