AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia >> 2020 >> [2020] AATA 3082

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Context | No Context | Help

1603081 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3082 (27 March 2020)

Last Updated: 20 August 2020

1603081 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3082 (27 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS: [Mrs A][1]
[Mr B]
[Mr C]

CASE NUMBER: 1603081

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Pakistan

MEMBER: James Silva

DATE: 27 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.


Statement made on 27 March 2020 at 12:23pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – religion – Christianity – Jehovah’s Witness – sur place claim – particular social group – Christian women – official and societal discrimination – authorities’ pursuit of father – false allegations by Muslim colleague – victim of alleged assault and rape – ongoing police threats and harassment – credibility concerns – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 424A, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES

MZAFZ v MIBP [2016] FCA 1081

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

  1. The applicants are a married couple from Pakistan, a woman and man aged [age]; and their [age] year old son.
  2. The applicants arrived in Australia [in] February 2015, as the holders of visitor [visas]. They applied for protection (Class XA) visas on 10 March 2015. On 16 February 2016, the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the delegate) refused the application pursuant to s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
  3. This is an application for review of that decision.
  4. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration, on the basis that the first-named applicant meets the refugee criterion.
  5. In brief, the Tribunal accepts on the basis that it is plausible, though far from certain, that the applicant wife has become a Jehovah’s Witness in Australia; and that she has developed a genuine interest in proselytising (‘witnessing’). The Tribunal finds, having regard to country information, that she has a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of religion, if she were to return to Pakistan and continue her religious practice. In relation to her original claims for protection, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was brought up a Christian and faced some discrimination. However it does not accept that any of her circumstances in Pakistan, individually or cumulatively, invoke Australia’s protection obligations, that is: (a) her claims to have suffered harm, as a Christian and a Christian woman; (b) her claim that the police threatened her after her parents’ departure for [Country 1]; or (c) that a former Muslim co-worker made false allegations against her that ultimately led to (among other things) a sexual assault by the police.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

  1. The issue in this case is whether one or more of the applicants meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether any of them is entitled to complementary protection. A summary of the relevant law is set out in Attachment A.

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Protection claims

  1. The first-named applicant (‘the applicant wife’ or ‘the applicant’) completed the protection visa application form as a person who has her own claims for protection; the other applicants stated that they do not have claims, but rely instead on their membership of the same family unit as the applicant wife. Essentially, she sought protection on the basis of her experiences as a Christian (and especially, a Christian woman); the authorities’ pursuit of her father (who resisted harassment from the Taliban and local police, and ended up fleeing to [Country 1]); and a former Muslim colleague who pursued the applicant. More recently, she claims to have become a Jehovah’s Witness; and the applicant husband and applicant son have also presented claims as Christians and as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Background

  1. The first-named applicant (‘the applicant wife’ or ‘the applicant’) is a [age] year old woman born in [Country 2], to Pakistani parents. Her languages are Urdu and English, and she identifies as a Pakistani Christian.
  2. The applicant lived in Lahore from the age (when she accompanied her family on their return to Pakistan), at two addresses, in [Location 1] (her parents’ home) and, from 2006, in [Location 2] (her husband’s home area).
  3. The applicant attended primary and secondary school in Lahore, and went on to do tertiary studies at [College 1] and later, [College 2]. From 2000 until 2003, she worked as an administrative manager at [Employer 1] in Lahore. From 2003 until January 2015, she worked as an assistant manager [at Employer 2] in Lahore.
  4. At the time of application, the applicant’s parents were in [Country 1], where they applied for refugee status. The applicant has since provided documentation showing that they were granted refugee status in October 2017. The applicant has one sibling, a younger sister living in [Country 1].
  5. The applicant parents married in Lahore in May 2005.
  6. The second-named applicant (‘the applicant husband’) is also from Lahore; speaks Urdu and English; and identifies as a Pakistani Christian. His father lived in Australia at the time of application, and his mother and sister in [Country 1]. He attended school and later college in Lahore, most recently completing a [course] in 2001. He held various positions as [an Occupation 1]. From October 2010 until December 2014, he worked [at Employer 3] in Lahore. He has a brother in Australia, [Mr E].
  7. The applicant son is a [age] year old boy born in Lahore.
  8. The applicants hold Pakistan passports, issued in [2013]. They held previous passports, which they left behind in Pakistan. As noted above, the applicant wife was born in [Country 2], and spent her early years there. The applicant parents visited [Country 3] in 2008; and the applicant wife went to [Country 4] in December 2012.
  9. The applicants were granted Australian visitor visas on 23 December 2014, valid until 23 March 2015.[2] As noted in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was attached to the review application form, they arrived in Australia [in] February 2015.

Evidence

  1. The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following relevant material (from the Department and the Tribunal files):

Pakistan

Australia

[Country 1] (application for asylum from the applicant’s parents)

  1. The Tribunal has a range of country information before it. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 84, it took into account the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) most recent country information report on Pakistan from February 2019[5], which includes sections on Christians, blasphemy and the availability of State protection (including the police). Submissions included country information about the treatment of Christians (particularly Christian women) and, more recently, the status of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Pakistan (both reports and screenshots of [Social Media 2] videos on this topic).
  2. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 20 June 2019, to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages, although for the main part the applicant wife gave her evidence in English and the applicant husband his in Urdu. The Tribunal took evidence from two witnesses in Australia, [Ms M] and [Mr I]; and the applicant gave details for her sister in [Country 1], [Ms P]. The applicants’ [representative] accompanied them to the hearing.

Non-disclosure certificate

  1. The Department issued a certificate under s.438 of the Act, certifying that the information in folio certain folios of Department file [number] were subject to paragraph 438(1)(a), as disclosure of it would be contrary to the public interest. The certificate identified the public interest as being that the folios ‘contain information relating to an internal working document and business affairs’.
  2. Folios 177-179 are an internal Department pro form ‘Identification text: protection visa applicants’ and the applicant’s consent form to take a photograph of the third-named applicant. Folio 216 is an earlier version of the disclosure decision checklist, in which a Department officer had assessed that the file contained no documents that should be subject to non-disclosure.
  3. In light of the Federal Court decision in MZAFZ v MIBP[6] , which considered a s.438 certificate issued on similar grounds, the Tribunal finds that the certificate is not valid as it does not specify a reason that could form the basis for a claim to public interest immunity. The Tribunal notes further that the identified folios contain no material that is relevant to this review.
  4. The Tribunal advised the applicants and their representative of the existence of the certificate, and its views. They noted this without comment.

Receiving country

  1. The applicants claim that they are nationals of Pakistan. They hold Pakistan passports, and have provided documentary and oral evidence that is consistent with this claim. There is nothing to suggest that they have any other or additional nationality. The Tribunal is satisfied that they are Pakistan nationals, and assesses their protection claims against Pakistan as the receiving country.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS

Credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence

  1. The Tribunal has taken into account the AAT’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility both in the conduct of the hearing and in evaluating the applicant’s evidence as a whole. Given the nature of the applicant’s wife’s claims, the Tribunal has had particular regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on Gender and Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons.
  2. The Tribunal has significant concerns about the truthfulness of the claims before it, and the applicants’ credibility as a whole. In relation to the primary applicant’s claims as presented to the Department, the Tribunal formed the impression that the applicant exaggerated and misconstrued her experiences as a Christian (and a Christian woman). In particular, her personal circumstances (such as her employment and travel arrangements) are at odds with her claims to have been targeted and mistreated by a former Muslim colleague, the police and others. The Tribunal also has concerns about the claims first raised in May 2019, namely that the applicants have become Jehovah’s Witnesses since arriving in Australia, but were exposed to that faith in Pakistan.

Mental health issues

  1. The applicant claims to have mental health issues which the Tribunal should take into account in its assessment of her claims and evidence.
  2. A letter dated 20 September 2018, from [Community Organisation 2] counsellor [Ms Q], a qualified clinical social worker, states that the applicant has consulted with her ‘regularly’ since April 2017. [Ms Q] wrote that the applicant completed questionnaires that showed her ‘symptomatic’ for anxiety and depression; and she recorded a list of symptoms, including short term memory loss. [Ms Q] stated that the applicant received ‘treatment’ (not further defined) which focused on managing her symptoms. She opined that, if the applicant were forced to return to Pakistan ‘where there is an immediate threat to her and her family’s safety’, her psychological state would decline dramatically.
  3. [Ms Q] appears to have accepted the applicant’s account of her circumstances in Pakistan, on the basis of the ‘consistency in her reporting of these events’, and the similarities between her presentation and symptoms with those of other survivors of sexual assault and violent acts. [Ms Q] did not disclose whether she tested, or has any expertise or qualifications to test, the veracity of the applicant’s account of her experiences in Pakistan; or provide details of future treatment needs; or give insights as to why the applicant sought assistance more than two years after her arrival in Australia.
  4. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had various health problems on arrival in Australia, but did not seek assistance with any mental health problems. In her statutory declaration of 9 May 2019, she wrote that her representative referred her to the [Community Organisation 2] counsellor in April 2017.
  5. In her submission of 13 May 2019, the representative invited the Tribunal to take into account the applicant’s ‘vulnerable mental state’ when assessing her claims and evidence, particularly her ability to recall past events. On page 2 of the submission, the representative characterises the applicant as having been in a ‘very poor mental state’ on her arrival in Australia, ‘as a result of the rape in Pakistan’. In effect, she also invites the Tribunal to accept the applicant’s claimed mental state as evidence of an alleged rape in September 2014. In a similar vein, the applicant wrote that she was ‘deeply traumatised’ on arrival in Australia, and was unable to ‘find any satisfaction’ when she visited her church; ultimately she found comfort with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  6. The Tribunal acknowledges the trauma associated with sexual assault, and the difficulty in assessing such claims. Even so, the material before it relating to the applicant’s mental health issues is problematic. First, although by her own evidence, the applicant engaged with medical staff in Australia, she did not seek counselling or other mental health services until prompted by her representative in April 2017. This raises questions about both the nature and severity of any claimed mental health problems, as well as any claimed links to specific incidents (such as the alleged rape). Second, it appears that the applicant has consulted with [Ms Q] for only a limited period; ‘treatment’ has been limited to counselling; and there is no evidence of the applicant having consulted with any GP, psychologist or psychiatrist for follow-up. Third, the circumstances of the referral strongly suggest that it was not for any genuine medical purpose, but rather to seek material to assist the applicant with her protection claims, in particular: (a) evidence to support her account of events in Pakistan, (b) evidence to explain why she failed to present claims relating to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in the more than four years between her arrival in Australia and her representative’s email of 13 May 2019, and (c) to seek a lenient assessment of her claims overall..
  7. In light of these concerns, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant presented to [Ms Q] with symptoms of anxiety; and it accepts that the family’s uncertain migration status may have been a contributing factor. However, it places minimal weight on these as evidence of any past events in Pakistan, or in assessing the claims and evidence that the applicant’s claims overall.

Interpretation at the Department interview

  1. The applicant raised concerns about the quality of the interpretation at the Department interview, and gave a number of specific examples. A Tribunal officer familiar with Urdu listened to the audio recording of the interview, and concluded that the interpretation was indeed poor. As discussed at hearing, the Tribunal therefore considers that it would be unsafe to rely on the applicant’s statements as interpreted at the hearing.
  2. The representative’s letter of 4 July 2019 requests the Tribunal to also take this into account ‘when considering [the applicant’s] failure to refer to her involvement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses at that time (in August 2015)’. In the Tribunal’s view, the standard of interpretation at the Department interview does not adequately explain the applicant’s failure to mention anything to the Department or the Tribunal – orally or in writing – about her claimed interest in the Jehovah’s Witnesses until the submission of 13 May 2019.

Family circumstances

  1. The applicant stated in the original application that her parents were in [Country 1], where they had an ongoing protection visa application. This is of potential significance to her claims given the statement in May 2019[7] that she ‘primarily fears returning to Pakistan as a result of the charges against her father, which have resulted in him being granted asylum in [Country 1]’, as well as his Christian faith. Later, the applicant provided a copy of the brief [Country 1 Immigration Dept] decision granting her parents protection. The basis of the decision is the [Country 1 Immigration Dept] panel’s view that Christians in Pakistan are at risk of persecution (implicitly, all Christians). It notes also that the applicant’s father presented claims ‘linked with criminality, a gang’, going on to add that ‘the panel doesn’t know if the [...] allegations concerning the story with those criminals are true or not’.
  2. The [Country 1 Immigration Dept] decision in relation to the applicant’s father refers only to criminal activities, not ‘charges’; and the panel pointedly made no findings of fact on those particular claims. The applicant did not provide a copy of her father’s statement of claims. In the Tribunal’s view, it is unclear whether the father’s claims, characterised by the [Country 1 Immigration Dept] as ‘criminality, a gang’, are the same as the applicant’s claims. In its view, it was misleading to state that the [Country 1] authorities found in favour of the applicant wife’s parents based on such claims. The Tribunal therefore places no weight on the [Country 1] decision, other than to confirm that the applicant’s parents made claims based on Christianity (apparently in passing) and some conflict with a criminal gang.
  3. The Tribunal’s detailed assessment follows.

Christianity

  1. The applicants have consistently claimed to be Christians. Country information indicates that there is a sizeable Christian minority in Lahore, and the applicant wife’s maiden name, [Surname A], also supports this claim. The Tribunal accepts that the family are Christians.

Discrimination

  1. The applicant claims to have suffered persistent discrimination and harassment in Pakistan, which cumulatively led her to fear for safety. For instance, in the area where she lived prior to 2006 (her parents’ home area), Muslim youth were jealous of her at school and tried to befriend her.
  2. The applicant claims that, after moving to [Location 2] in 2006 (to join her husband), she faced continued threats, particularly at work.
  3. In her original statement of claims, the applicant made the more general observation that Muslims in Pakistan are in the majority, and absolutely reject and hate Christians. She claimed that, as a result, she had to avoid trouble with Muslims (in particular, Muslim students). During times of sectarian tensions, the Christian community felt vulnerable, and feared seeking police protection, for fear that Muslims and/or the authorities would frame false charges.
  4. Country information discussed at hearing indicates that Christians constitute a small minority in Pakistan, and face some degree of discrimination, although this does not appear to be so pervasive or severe as to indicate that Christians are at risk of persecution. The Tribunal drew, among other things, on DFAT’s latest report, which included the following: ‘While a small number of Christians are relatively prosperous, Christians are the most economically vulnerable group in Pakistan and face significant social prejudice and class discrimination’. The section on Christians concludes:

DFAT assesses that Christians face a low level of official discrimination and a moderate level of societal discrimination. DFAT further assesses that Christians face a moderate risk of societal violence and sectarian violence. DFAT assesses implementation of laws against blasphemy, and the potential for communal violence following an accusation of blasphemy disproportionately affect religious minorities, including Christians, in Pakistan (see Blasphemy).

  1. The Tribunal has significant concerns about the applicant’s claims based on her Christian faith, and her situation as a Christian woman. First, it notes that her family circumstances, education and employment all suggest that she is not from a socio-economically vulnerable community; and that she has not suffered discrimination that amounts to persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s hard work and a degree of luck may have contributed to her success; but this does not displace its overall view of her circumstances. Second, while the applicant’s claims that she experienced instances of verbal abuse and intimidation, the Tribunal is of the view that she has exaggerated and misconstrued these, including her claimed fears of abduction and forced conversion, and that she married the applicant husband in response to such fears. Third, the applicant’s conduct and experiences in Pakistan, including her return travel to [Country 4] in 2012 and her ability to work as [an administrator] from 2003 to 2015, add to the Tribunal’s doubts about her claimed fears. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s account as reliable, eg. the claim that she performed her [tasks] despite persistent problems with Muslim students. Fourth, the fact that the applicant wife presented claims as a Christian, but the applicant husband did not, reinforces the Tribunal’s concerns. It takes into account the applicant wife’s suggestion that she faced heightened risks, as a Christian woman. It also takes into account the possibility that the applicant husband opted to rely on her protection claims, perhaps because they appeared stronger and/or for other reasons. Nonetheless, his failure to seek protection as a Christian undermines the applicant’s account of the degree of hostility between Muslims and Christians. Fifth, the Tribunal found some of the applicant’s claims to be generalised, emotive and/or unsupported by country information. Examples include her characterisation of Muslims’ absolute hatred of Christians, the requirement for her to wear a hijab in Lahore, and the implied prevalence of Muslims and the police framing Christians.
  2. In sum, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant wife experienced discrimination that individually or cumulatively involved persecution or significant harm, or that she genuinely feared such harm.

Association with father

  1. The applicant claims to fear that she is also at risk due to her association with her father. These claims are, in brief:
  2. At hearing, the applicant explained that it was near the [border] that locals intercepted the delivery, suspecting that it was contraband. In response to the Tribunal’s questions for more details, the applicant said that the police confiscated the contents of the van, but never disclosed what these were; and they returned to van to her father. She said that, over a period of some five to six hours, the local people assaulted her father, then the police tortured him. He bribed the police to let him go.
  3. As noted above, although the applicant claimed that the [Country 1] authorities granted her parents asylum on the basis of this claim, the limited documentation she provided does not support this. Furthermore, the Tribunal does not have before it a copy of the parents’ protection visa applications to determine whether her father’s and her claims are about the same incident. Given the extent of the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility generally, it does not accept that there was any such incident.
  4. The applicant also claimed that a few months later – hence, in about mid-2012 - the police came looking for her to enquire about her father’s whereabouts. They said that they held her accountable for her father’s escape. They pushed her against the wall and made threats against the whole family. At hearing, the applicant said that her father had rented out the family home, and the police came to her in [Location 2]. She initially said that neither her husband nor her father-in-law were at home, but later changed this to say that her father-in-law was unwell and at home, but did not hear the police.
  5. In her statement of claims, the applicant wrote ‘we lost all hope of getting protection from the police in the future’. At hearing, the Tribunal asked about events following the police threats, given the applicant’s continued stay in the same home in Pakistan until early 2015. The applicant said that she telephoned the applicant husband, sometime in the late afternoon. He came home early and, in the meantime, told her to inform her father in [Country 1]. She said that the police kept returning to their home after that, and they paid bribes in the hope of settling things down. Asked about other precautions, the applicant said that the applicant husband used to collect their son from school, and they told her father-in-law not to open the door during the day. The applicant husband also referred in his evidence to regular police visits and bribes.
  6. The Tribunal put to the applicant that she travelled to [Country 4] in December 2012 (according to information in her protection visa application), and wondered whether she had thought of seeking protection there or elsewhere. She replied that it had been a kind of work-related trip. Meanwhile, her sister in [Country 1] had dissuaded her from travelling there for protection, on the basis that she had her own family commitments.
  7. The Tribunal has very significant concerns about these claims. First, the applicants’ continued residence in the same home in [Location 2], and the applicant wife’s uninterrupted employment, cast doubt on the suggestion that the applicant received any such threats from the police, let alone that she considered them credible. Second, the Tribunal found the applicant’s account of the precautions that she and her family took in the wake of such threats to be unconvincing. Third, the applicant’s evidence about her visit to [Country 4] in late 2012 and her discussions with her sister in [Country 1] all suggest that she did not fear for her or her family’s safety at any time, but was rather contemplating longer-term migration options.
  8. Given the extent of these concerns, and its adverse view of the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was subject to any ongoing police threats or harassment; or that she feared for her safety because of her association with her father, and his departure for [Country 1]. It does not accept, on the available material, that the police, Tehrik-e-Taliban or anyone else (such as criminals dealing with some kind of contraband) targeted the applicant’s father, for criminal purposes, or on the basis of any religiously-motivated false allegations of firearms trafficking. The Tribunal also does not accept that the police assaulted, arrested and laid charges against the applicant’s father; that they released him (whether after payment of a bribe, or on actual bail); or that they had any reason to question the applicant about his whereabouts; that they threatened to hold her accountable for his absence; or that they routinely demanded bribes and intimidated her and her family. The Tribunal rejects all associated claims.

Targeting by Muslim colleague

  1. The applicant claims that a Muslim colleague at [Employer 2], ‘[Mr R]’, heard about her father’s experience through friends. He taunted the applicant, asking whether her father had been transporting firearms and whether he was yet in prison. The applicant was terrified her employer would find out, and dismiss her. [Mr R], who had always been jealous of the applicant’s career success, started to humiliate the applicant in front of her colleagues and started to boss her around.
  2. At hearing, the applicant described [Mr R]’s verbal abuse and said that the tipping point came in July 2013, when he threw a file at her face. She said that there had been ongoing issues with Muslim colleagues, and that after this incident, [Employer 2] put him on probation for six months. His conduct only got worse, and they dismissed him. She said that, even after he left the job, he had friends inside [Employer 2], and had access to information about the administration as well as her home address. The parents who called on her home told her that he was behind their approach. The applicant described the assault and the arrival of the police in terms generally consistent with her written claims.
  3. The applicant provided a supporting statement from [Rev. F], of [Employer 3], Lahore, dated 9 August 2015. The pastor states that the applicant parents attended his office in August/September 2014, and the applicant wife told him ‘one of [her] Muslim colleagues in her office is creating some trouble’, and she fears for her employment and family, due to her religion. The Tribunal notes that this letter is vague about when the applicants related these problems, and the nature of the conflict with the Muslim colleague ([Mr R] was, in any event, a former colleague at that time). The suggestion that the applicant fears losing her work as a Christian does not sit well with the fact that she in fact worked at [Employer 2] right up to her departure from Pakistan in early 2015, when she resigned. This letter is clearly written to support the applicants’ bid for permanent residency, and the Tribunal places minimal weight on it as independent evidence of the nature or extent of any problems the applicant wife may have faced.
  4. The Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty in assessing such claims, taking into account among other things that such harassment can be furtive and menacing, and that the applicant was a Christian woman in a mainly Muslim setting. Nonetheless, the applicant’s account is problematic. First, the Tribunal has rejected above the applicant’s claims about the allegations against her father, and his arrest. It follows that it also rejects the claim that [Mr R]’s knowledge of these allegations emboldened him to harass the applicant. Second, while the applicant may well have drawn on her observations about misconduct at work, and her experience with document fraud relating to course admissions for [Employer 2], the Tribunal considers the claimed linkage between [Mr R]’s dismissal in late December 2013, the applicant’s discovery of the fraud in September 2014, and [Mr R]’s capacity to direct the aggrieved students and their parents to her home address to be contrived. (For findings, see paragraph 67 below).

Police: sexual assault

  1. The applicant claimed that the police took her inside after the attack and questioned her about. She told them everything that had happened (i.e. the background concerning the false documents, and the parents’ and students’ assault of her). The police responded that they did not believe her, and referred to the allegations of firearms smuggling against her father. (Implicitly, they turned on the applicant after realising her family links, religious background, etc.) When the applicant said that they could confirm her story about the document fraud with [Employer 2], the police took her response to be impudent. They then raped her. On leaving the premises they warned that if she told anyone, they would abduct the applicant and shoot her dead.
  2. At hearing, the Tribunal found it neither appropriate nor necessary to discuss with the applicant the details of the claimed fight with the parents and students, or the alleged rape. The applicant commented that, after the fight, she was lying on the ground and the police carried her into the house. She said that later (implicitly, after the rape), she was semi-conscious on the floor and, on his return home, her husband took her into their room. The Tribunal focused in its discussion on the events following the alleged assault and rape.

Subsequent events

  1. The applicant wrote in her statement that, on revealing to her husband what had occurred, he suggested she move to an uncle’s home in another area. She initially feared returning to work, but then decided to resume her normal routine. Her husband contacted an agent to secure the family’s departure from Pakistan. There had initially been talk of going to [Country 1], but the agent told them that their chances of getting visas were slim, because their parents had applied for asylum there.
  2. At hearing, the applicant parents gave broadly consistent evidence about their activities after September 2014, leading up to the family’s departure for Australia in February 2015. They both said that the applicant had a number of injuries, but took painkillers and did not require or seek any further medical attention. She took the following Monday off work, but returned there on Tuesday (although the applicant also implied that this was work from home).
  3. The applicant told the Tribunal that the couple discussed whether she should move away, but the applicant husband realised that if she left her job immediately, it would leave the way open for [Mr R] to spread further damaging rumours. Finally in December 2014, she moved to her uncle’s place in another area, together with the applicant son. Meanwhile, the couple made enquiries about leaving for [Country 1], but learned that they had poor prospects of securing visas.
  4. Asked about her continued work through to January 2015 – hence, even after she allegedly moved to another place for her safety – the applicant wife said that she gave 30 days’ written notice in order to secure access to providence funds. Furthermore, the couple wished to avoid giving the impression (to [Mr R] or other parties) that something bad had happened.
  5. The Tribunal found the applicants’ evidence about their aftermath of the alleged assault (by the students and their parents) and the alleged rape unconvincing. Their accounts of the physical and psychological consequences of these attacks were fleeting, the applicant’s readiness to return to work raises further questions, as does her continued stay at home, when there were evidently other options open to her. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr R]’s alleged capacity to harm the applicant’s reputation adequately explains her conduct during this period.
  6. As the Tribunal discussed at hearing, and put to the applicants in writing under s.424A of the Act, their Australian visitor visas, lodged on 23 October 2014, contained a number of documents that further undermine their claims that they decided to leave Pakistan after and in response to the alleged attacks (the fight and the police rape) on 19 September 2014.
  7. The applicants claimed, in their comments/responses to this information, that they cannot recall ‘when or why they applied for the documentation relating to their leave’, but think they might have been planning leave over the Christmas period, and/or to visit the applicant husband’s brother, who was about to become a father. They also pointed to the passage of time. The Tribunal finds these comments/responses unpersuasive, and does not accept them. In its view, a decision to leave one’s country is significant and requires considerable effort. It does not accept that the applicant parents are confused as to when they started preparations to emigrate, or what triggered this. It does not accept that they spoke to an agent about migrating to [Country 1] or Australia in response to [Mr R]’s threats, a physical attack by parents and students, or any rape by police. Given the extent of its other concerns, the Tribunal finds that the applicants have fabricated these claims, and that they are not based on fact.
  8. In summary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant wife is a Christian, and that she has suffered some discrimination as a Christian and as a woman. However, for the reasons given above, it does not accept that such discrimination has resulted in harm that, individually or cumulatively, involves persecution or significant harm. It also does not accept that she was subject to police threats, or demands for bribes, or any other adverse attention from the police, for any reason linked with her father’s business and his departure for [Country 1]. It also does not accept that she was subject to persistent threats from a former Muslim colleague, [Mr R]; that some parents and students involved in document fraud at [Employer 2] confronted the applicant at her home, and ultimately attacked her (at the behest of [Mr R], or independently); that local police refused to protect, and instead sexually assaulted her; or that the applicants’ departure from Pakistan was related to such (now-rejected) incidents. The Tribunal rejects all associated claims.

Jehovah’s Witness

  1. The applicant made no mention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the original application, at her Department interview in August 2015 or at any time prior to the delegate’s decision in February 2016. The first articulation of this claim in the submission of 13 May 2019, from the applicant’s current representative.
  2. There are several striking features of the claims relating to Jehovah’s Witness. First, as noted above, there was no mention of any such JW affiliation or adherence earlier. The applicant and the representative submitted various reasons for this including: (a) the applicant’s nascent interest in the faith, which had not yet developed into a fully-fledged commitment; (b) the failure of the Minister’s delegate to explore in depth how the applicant practiced her Christian faith; and (c) her mental health on arrival in Australia. Second, while the applicant wife has emphasised her commitment to the faith, it is apparent from the recent submissions and supporting evidence that all of the applicants claim to be associated with the faith, and to now have protection claims in their own right.

In Pakistan

  1. The applicant claims that her sister in [Country 1] first introduced her to the Jehovah’s Witness faith, sometime around 2002 or 2003. A local JW brother, [Mr G], used to visit her home regularly, perhaps once a month, to help her study the Bible. The applicant told the Tribunal that she studied with [Mr G] regularly, about once a month, simply to gain more knowledge. She did not attend any JW meetings or participate in any other activities. The applicant husband confirmed that he had met [Mr G], and said that the applicant’s aunt is also a Jehovah’s Witness.
  2. The applicant presented a letter from [Mr G], dated 6 May 2019. He wrote that all of the applicants ‘showed genuine interest in learning the truth from the Bible hence I started studying with them in 2013. Before that [the applicant] used to read Jehovah’s Witnesses literature regularly and had knowledge of our organisation’. The Tribunal asked at hearing about [Mr G]’s availability to give evidence, but the applicant said that he is an elderly man.
  3. The applicant presented copies of some Bible study notes bearing dates in 2014 and 2015, which she claims she had written up in Pakistan. Another note, dated 12 February 2015, just weeks after the applicant’s arrival in Australia, appears on the same note pad. Several persons in Australia who wrote letters of support referred to the applicant’s claimed involvement with JW in Pakistan, evidently based on what the applicant had told them.
  4. The Tribunal accepts on the available material that the applicant’s sister in [Country 1] is a Jehovah’s Witness, but it finds the evidence of her ‘exposure’ to it in Pakistan, through [Mr G] and/or an aunt, to be vague, ambiguous and inconclusive. The Tribunal considers that, if the applicant had any genuine interest in JW in Pakistan, she would have at some point made contact with practitioners other than [Mr G] and, in the event that she was apprehensive about this, she would have informed the migration agent who assisted with the original application. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had any involvement with the JW in Pakistan, other than a vague knowledge that her sister in [Country 1] is a JW practitioner. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant has advanced this claim to bolster her protection visa application, and in particular, to avoid the suggestion that her association with Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia is a sur place claim.

In Australia

  1. The applicant gave evidence at hearing concerning her knowledge, both of Christianity and the unique teachings and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She spoke with evident ease and familiarity with these. On some issues – such as the practicalities of complying with JW teachings such as the non-celebration of Christmas and birthdays – the applicant parents gave generally consistent information about how they manage these in terms of other relatives, such as the applicant husband’s family. On other aspects, such as baptism and the refusal of blood transfusions, the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence somewhat vague and evasive. Following the hearing, she submitted evidence of her baptism [in] November 2019 and an advance health care directive dated 15 December 2019, instructing that she not receive blood transfusions, in accordance with her JW faith. The timing of these actions, taken more than 4½ years after the applicants’ arrival in Australia and only shortly after the Tribunal hearing, gives the impression that they were undertaken to cure perceived weaknesses in the applicants’ cases.
  2. The Tribunal has received a large volume of material relating to the applicant wife’s, and to some extent, the other applicants’, activities with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia; and the judgement by JW adherents in this country concerning the nature and sincerity of their participation in these activities. A portion of this material relates to the applicants’ association with the Jehovah’s Witnesses prior to August 2015 (the Department interview) and February 2016 (the delegate’s decision, whereas most of it concerns the subsequent years. It includes, in broad terms, the following:
  3. Section 5J(6) requires that ‘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.’ The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has engaged in these activities at least in part for social reasons, and on this basis, is satisfied that section 5J(6) does not apply in this case.
  4. As set out above, the Tribunal has significant concerns about the applicants’ credibility as a whole, and is concerned that they have set out to associate themselves with JW adherents (including through the applicant’s sister in [Country 1]) as a means of securing permanent residency in Australia.
  5. The Tribunal notes, however, the extent of the applicants’ knowledge about Jehovah’s Witnesses, the duration of their links with the community (which extends to well before the presentation of associated protection claims in May 2019), and the considered opinions of JW followers in Sydney. In light of this evidence, the Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicants have become genuine Jehovah’s Witnesses, with a commitment to the beliefs of that faith and its practices, including evangelising (‘witnessing’).

ASSESSMENT: REFUGEE CRITERION

  1. The Tribunal now assesses whether, in light of the above findings of fact, and having regard also to any other relevant factors – in particular, country information, as well as the applicants’ future conduct – there is a real chance of him experiencing serious harm amounting to persecution if they return to Pakistan for reason of their religion (actual or imputed) or for other of the reasons enumerated in s.5J(1)).
  2. As noted above, the applicant wife initially presented protection claims of her own, and the other applicants relied on their membership of the same family unit. The submission of 13 May 2019 contends, however, that all of the applicants now seek protection on the basis of their Christian faith or, more tentatively, their adherence to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, actual and perceived.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

  1. The Tribunal has accepted that the applicants have become genuine Jehovah’s Witnesses’ adherents, and that they been following that faith’s beliefs and practices, which include evangelising. On the basis of the applicant’s evidence, and that of [Ms L], [Mr H], [Ms K] and [Ms M], the Tribunal also accepts that the applicant wife has been actively ‘witnessing’ in Australia, including door-knocking and distributing leaflets, and that this now forms an integral part of her religious practice.
  2. As noted in the submission of 13 May 2019, there is little country information specifically about Jehovah’s Witnesses in Pakistan. It appears to be a small community of 19 congregations[8]. There are some reported instances of the authorities arresting and bringing blasphemy charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses for handing out Watchtower leaflets.[9] The most recent DFAT report notes:[10] ‘Blasphemy and other offences relating to religion are criminalised in Pakistan under Articles 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). Article 295C outlaws the use of ‘derogatory remarks’ against the Holy Prophet.’ The report notes that, in addition to perceived insults against religion, individuals have used blasphemy laws to settle personal or property disputes’, and DFAT assessed that ‘implementation of laws against blasphemy, and the potential for communal violence following an accusation of blasphemy, disproportionately affect religious minorities in Pakistan’.
  3. The Tribunal notes the assessment of the UK Home Office[11] that while ‘there are reports of Christians being charged under the blasphemy laws and sentenced to death or life imprisonment’, it is ‘[e]vangelising Christians [who] may find themselves particularly affected by the blasphemy laws, [...] and may be able to demonstrate that use of the blasphemy laws against them while practising their religion could amount to persecution’.
  4. The Tribunal places weight on the applicant’s adherence to Jehovah’s Witness beliefs and practices, her stated intention to continue these practices if she returns to Pakistan, and country information about the risks faced by Christians who evangelise. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant may face a risk of a violent societal response to such activities, accusations of blasphemy, and discrimination and mistreatment at the hands of officials prosecuting such allegations. The Tribunal is satisfied, given the low threshold for a ‘real chance of serious harm’, that there is a small but nonetheless real chance that she would suffer serious harm amounting to persecution if, on the family’s return to Pakistan, she continued to evangelise in accordance with JW teachings.
  5. Although the other applicants are less active in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant husband is also at risk of serious harm amounting to persecution, either through his participation in any related activities or through his association with the applicant wife. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant parents could avoid a real chance of serious harm (persecution) by modifying their behaviour, that is, refraining from evangelising. However, that would require them to ‘cease to be involved in the practice of [their] faith’ (s. 5J(3)(c)(i)), and would therefore not be a reasonable modification of their behaviour such as to negate a well-founded fear of persecution: s.5J(3). The Tribunal is satisfied on this basis that all the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution, also on the basis of the restrictions on their religious practice.
  6. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants’ real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Pakistan: s.5J(1)(c), as official and societal attitudes, and Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, apply throughout the country.
  7. Section 36(3) provides that, subject to certain qualifications, Australia is taken not to have protection obligations in respect of an applicant who has a right to enter and reside in another country and has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of that right. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that any of the applicants has a right to enter and reside in – whether temporarily or permanently, and however that right arose or is expressed – any country other than Pakistan.

Christian and related claims

  1. As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that the applicants practiced as Christians (Presbyterians) in Pakistan. The applicant wife presented claims as a Christian, as well as claims based on her and her father’s experiences with the police, Tehrik-e-Taliban, a disaffected Muslim colleague and the Muslim-dominated society at large. More recently, the other applicants have presented claims broadly based on their Christian faith.
  2. The applicant and her representative claimed that she also has a well-founded fear of persecution as a Christian and a woman in Pakistan, taking into account among other things reported official and societal discrimination and violence against Christians and women. The Tribunal has found the applicant’s claims of past harm as a Christian to be unreliable, and does not accept that she faced any official or societal discrimination, or other harm, that individually or cumulatively amounted to persecution. While DFAT assesses that ‘Christians face a low level of official discrimination and a moderate level of societal discrimination’, the Tribunal finds that the applicant wife had education, professional and social opportunities, and a family life that are far removed from the circumstances facing more vulnerable Christians and women. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm if she returns to Pakistan, as a Christian, as a Christian woman or arising out of any of the (now-rejected) incidents involving her or her father.
  3. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of their religion, solely arising out of their Jehovah’s Witness adherence.

CONCLUSION

  1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicants satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

DECISION

  1. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.





James Silva
Member

ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT LAW

The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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 themself 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 policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant 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.

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.
...

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 them 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

...

(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.

...


[1] Nee [Surname D]; the applicant wife also uses the names ‘[Ms D]’ and ‘[Mrs B]’.
[2] The applicant wife provided this information on her protection visa application form.
[3] The Department file includes selected pages from the applicants’ visitor visa applications; relevant parts of this were referred to in the delegate’s decision record, which the applicants attached to their review application.
[4] [Information deleted]
[5] DFAT: Country Information Report – Pakistan, 20 February 2019
[6] MZAFZ v MIBP [2016] FCA 1081, Federal Court of Australia, Beach J, VID 461 of 2016
[7] Submission of 13 May 2019
[8] See JW Org: https://www.jw.org/pma/meten-yehova-keil/worldwide/PK/
[9] See, for instance: Worldwatch Monitor, May 27, 2014,: Pakistani blasphemy law used against popular TV channel, Jehovah’s Witnesses and more, https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2014/05/pakistani-blasphemy-law-used-against-popular-tv-channel-jehovahs-witnesses-and-more/; and Jehovah’s Witness.com: Four Jehovah’s Witnesses face death penalty – Victim of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/280335/four-jehovahs-witnesses-face-death-penalty-victim-pakistans-blasphemy-law

[10] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 20 February 2019, 3.81, 3/84 and 3.89.
[11] UK Home Office, September 2018, Country Policy and Information Note: Pakistan – Christians and Christian Converts, paras. 2.4.6-7.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2020/3082.html