Last Updated: Friday, 20 October 2017, 11:43 GMT

AATA Case No. 1607767

Publisher Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Publication Date 30 May 2017
Citation / Document Symbol [2016] AATA 4559 (13 October 2016)
Cite as AATA Case No. 1607767, [2016] AATA 4559 (13 October 2016), Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 30 May 2017, available at: http://www.refworld.org/cases,AUS_AAT,592d82644.html [accessed 22 October 2017]
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

1607767 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4559 (13 October 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER: 1607767

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Pakistan

MEMBER: David Corrigan

DATE: 13 October 2016

PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne

DECISION: The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

Statement made on 13 October 2016 at 12:19pm

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. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
  2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that that that there had been non-compliance under s.101(a) and (b) of the Act in that the applicant had given incorrect answers on his protection visa application form and had not provided an answer on that form. It was also cancelled on the basis that there had been non-compliance with s.103 of the Act in that the applicant provided a bogus document. The issue in the present case is whether the grounds for cancellation are made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
  3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 August 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Dari and English languages.
  4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
  5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be set aside.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

  1. Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
  2. The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.
  3. In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.

Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?

  1. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Migration Act is set out in the delegate's decision (submitted by the applicant to the Tribunal) and reads as follows:

Evidence of non-compliance:

Evidence held by the department:

Evidence - Form 866- Protection visa application

  1. [In] March 2010 the visa holder applied for a protection visa. As part of this application he provided a completed Form 866, signed and dated [the previous day]. In Part C of the form the visa holder gave the following answers:
    1. Question 1 of Form 866 asks: "What is your full name?" The recorded answers are: Family name: [Applicant family name]

Given Name: [Applicant given names]

  1. Question 7 of Form 866 asks: "Date of birth". The recorded answer is: "[Date 1]".
    1. Question 8 of the Form 866: "Place of Birth". The following answers are recorded: Town/city: [Village 1], Ghazni province

Country: AFGHANISTAN

  1. Question 19 of Form 866 asks: "Your citizenship at birth". The recorded answer is: "AFGHAN".
  2. Question 20 of Form 866 asks: "Your current citizenship (if different to at birth)". "No" answer is recorded to this question.
  3. Question 21 of Form 866 asks: "Do you hold any other citizenship or are you a national of any other country?" The recorded answer is: NO (tick box).
    1. Question 26 of Form 866 asks: "Did you enter Australia as a" (multiple choice): The recorded answer is "Unauthorised" (tick box).
    2. Question 27 of Form 866 asks: "Date of arrival in Australia". The recorded answer is: "[in February] 2010".

Evidence - Statutory Declaration

  1. As part of the Protection visa application the visa holder provided a 7 page document - a Statutory Declaration dated [in] March 2010 - made by him in which he stated (relevant excerpts):

"I am not sure of my exact birth date. My parents have told me that I am [age] years old. I have tried to give the accurate birthdates for myself and my family in this application, but we do not have any official confirmation of our birthdates. I do not have any official documents which show my birth date. My parents did not arrange for us children to get a Taskarah as this is not compulsory".

"I was born in [Village 1] and have lived there until I left Afghanistan in 2010. My village is small as it is approximately [number] houses. All the people in my village are Hazara. The nearby [village] is bigger, has approximately [number] houses and has both Hazara and Pashtuns living there. I had not been out of my village until my father took me to Kabul in early 2010. My father always wanted to protect us children so he went alone to the bazaar".

"I fear that my life is at risk if I am forced to go to Afghanistan. I am easily identifiable as a Hazara from my facial features and my Shi'a prayers".

"I fear the Taliban as they hate Hazaras because of our religion and our race. They think that they will be able to go to heaven more easily if they kill Hazaras".

"I could only attempt to return to my area as I do not have any connections with any other region in Afghanistan. It will be very dangerous for me to attempt to go to Ghazni and find my family's village as I do not have anyone to assist and protect me".

"Even if I am able to return to my village I am under threat from the Taliban. They have taken my brother and will take me. I fear that I will be killed by the Taliban".

"When we left the smuggler arranged for us to go back to the airport by car. At the airport he showed all the documents to the officials and we boarded the plane. We arrived in Sydney at night time. The smuggler took all the papers and talked to the officials. I stood behind until we went to get our bags. He took me in a taxi to a hotel".

Evidence - Form 80

  1. As part of the Protection visa application the visa holder also provided a Personal Particulars for Character Assessment (Form 80) signed and dated [in] March 2010.
  2. Question 1 of the Form 80 asks: "Write your name and birth details as shown on official documents such as birth certificate, family book, passport or identification document". The following answer is recorded:

Family name: [Applicant family name]

Given names: [Applicant given names]

  1. Question 3 of the Form 80 asks: "Other names you are, or have been known by..." The following answers are recorded:

Family name: No answer is recorded

Given name: No answer is recorded

  1. Question 5 of the Form 80 asks: "Date of Birth". The recorded answer to this question is: "[Date 1]"
  2. Question 6 of the Form 80 asks "Place of birth". The recorded answer to this question is: Town/city: [Village 1]

State/Province: Ghazni

Country: Afghanistan

  1. Question 8 of the Form 80 asks: "What is your current citizenship?" The recorded answer to this question is: "Afghan".
  2. Question 11 of the Form 80 asks: "Are you a dual citizen or have you held any other citizenship?" The recorded answer to this question is "No" (tick box).
  3. Question 13 of the Form 80 asks: "Details of all passports ever issued to you". The recorded answer is "N/A".
  4. Question 14 of the Form 80 asks: "Details of any identity documents, social security cards, or any alien registration numbers you currently use or have used in the past." No answer is recorded.

20 Based on the above information and meeting all other relevant criteria [in] December 2010

[the applicant] was granted a Protection visa.

Evidence - Form [Number] - [temporary] visa application lodged by [Name 1]

  1. [In] December 2009, [Name 1] (Date of Birth [Date 2]), applied for a [temporary] visa at the department's office in Islamabad, Pakistan. As part of that application he provided a completed application Form [Number].
  2. Question 4 of Form [Number] asks: "Name(s) as shown in your passport". The following answer is recorded:

Family name: [Name 1 family name]

Given names: [Name 1 first name]

  1. Question 4 of Form [Number] also asks: "Other names you are, or have been known by...". No answer is recorded.
  2. Question 6 of Form [Number] asks: "Date of Birth". The recorded answer to this question is: "[Date 2]".
  3. Question 8 of Form [Number] asks "Place of birth". The recorded answer to this question is: Town/city: Quetta

Country: Pakistan

  1. Question 9 of Form [Number] asks: "Details from your passport". The recorded answer is: Passport Number: [Number]

Country of Passport: Pakistan

Date of issue: [2008]

Date of expiry: [2013]

  1. Question 11 of Form [Number] asks: "Of which countries are you a citizen?" The recorded answer to this question is: "Pakistan".
  2. Included with the [temporary] visa application was a number of supporting documents. These included:

- Pakistan passport in the name of [Name 1] (DOB [Date 2]), Place of birth: Quetta, Pakistan

- A photograph of the visa applicant

Evidence - Departmental Movement Records

  1. Departmental movement records indicate that the holder of a Pakistan passport, number [Number] in the name of [Name 1] (DOB: [Date 2]), entered Australia at [named] Airport [in] January 2010 on a [temporary] visa permitting a stay of up to 3 months.

Evidence - Photographic evidence and Facial Image Comparison Report

  1. [In] December 2009 [Name 1] applied for a [temporary] visa. As part of this application he submitted a photograph of himself.
  2. [In] March 2010 the visa holder applied for a Protection visa. As part of this application he was required to undertake a health examination and submit a photograph of himself.
  3. [In] March 2014 the visa holder applied for Australian citizenship. As part of his application he was required to submit a photograph of himself.
  4. [In] August 2014 the department completed a Facial Image Comparison Report, analysing the images from:

- the [temporary] visa application for [Name 1]

- the medical examination for [the applicant's] Protection visa application - the citizenship application for [the applicant]

  1. The finding of the Facial Image Comparison Specialist is that the three images represent the same person.

Evidence - Departmental Identity Assessment

  1. [In] October 2015 an identity determination was completed by a departmental identity officer in regards to [Name 1]. This determination found that [Name 1] was not [applicant name] from Afghanistan as he claimed; rather he was [Name 1] from Pakistan.

Evidence - Identity Interview conducted [in] May 2015 and Afghan Taskera document

  1. [In] May 2015, an identity interview was conducted with the visa holder and he was asked whether he had been issued with any identity documentation in Afghanistan, such as a Taskera. He stated in the interview that he did not have such a document. He also stated this was the case in his Statutory Declaration for his Protection Visa application.
  2. [In] August 2015, the visa holder provided an Afghan Taskera dated [in] 2013 and English translation to the department as evidence of his identity in support of his citizenship application. This document was also submitted to the department [in] September 2015.

Consideration of Evidence

  1. The visa holder's Protection visa was granted on the basis that he satisfied the Minister that he engaged Australia's protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. The visa holder's status as an ethnic Hazara from Afghanistan who was at risk of persecution was fundamental to this determination.
  2. The department has completed an Identity Determination Report which has refuted the identity claimed by the visa holder in his Protection visa application. The department has established that the visa holder is not [applicant name], but [Name 1], a citizen of Pakistan. It has been established that the visa holder entered Australia as [Name 1] on his genuinely-issued Pakistan passport on a [temporary] visa [in] January 2010.
  3. As the incorrect information the visa holder provided was material to this determination it appears that he may not have engaged Australia's protection obligations

Section 101(a)

  1. Given the evidence explained above, I consider that the visa holder has not complied with section 101(a) of the Act because he has not provided answers to the following questions on the Form 866.- Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa:
    • At question 20 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states 'Current citizenship', no answer was given, and he should have completed the question to indicate 'Pakistan'.
  2. Given the evidence explained above, I consider that the visa holder has not complied with section 101(a) of the Act because he has not provided answers to the following questions on the Form 80 -Personal particulars for character assessment:
    • At question 3 of Form 80, where it states 'Other names you are, or have been, known by', no
      answer was given, and he should have completed the question to indicate '[Name 1]'.
    • At question 14 of Form 80, where it states 'Details of any identity documents, social security cards, or any alien registration numbers you currently use or have used in the past', no answer was given, and he should have completed the question to indicate 'Pakistan passport number [Number]'.

Section 101(b)

  1. Given the evidence explained above, I consider that the visa holder has not complied with section 101(b) of the Act because he has provided incorrect answers to the following questions on the Form 866 - Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa:
    • At question 1 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states "What is your full name", and the visa holder indicated '[applicant name]', as his Pakistan passport lists his name as `[Name 1]'.
    • At question 7 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states "Date of birth", and the visa holder indicated '[Date 1]', as his Pakistan passport lists his date of birth as '[Date 2]'.
    • At question 8 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states "Place of birth", and the visa holder indicated `[Village 1], Ghazni province, Afghanistan', as his Pakistan passport lists his place of birth as 'Quetta, Pakistan'.
    • At question 19 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states 'Your citizenship at birth', and the visa holder indicated 'Afghan' as he is a citizen of Pakistan.
    • At question 20 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states 'Your current citizenship (if different at birth)', and the visa holder indicated 'Afghan', as he is a citizen of Pakistan.
    • At question 21 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states `Do you hold any other citizenship or are you a national of any other country?' and the visa holder indicated 'No', as he did not declare that he is citizen of Pakistan.
    • At question 26 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states 'Did you enter Australia as a" (multiple choice)' and the visa holder indicated 'Unauthorised', as he entered Australia as the holder of a [temporary] visa.
    • At question 27 of Part C of the Form 866, where it states 'Date of arrival in Australia' and the visa holder indicated '[Feb]-2010', as he entered Australia [in] January 2010.
  2. Given the evidence explained above, I consider that the visa holder has not complied with section 101(b) of the Act because he has provided incorrect answers to the following questions on the Form 80 - Personal particulars for character assessment:
    • Question 1 of Form 80 in which he incorrectly stated that his name is `[applicant name]', and not '[Name 1]'.
    • Question 5 of Form 80 in which he incorrectly stated that his date of birth is '[Date 1]', and not '[Date 2]'.
    • Question 6 of Form 80 in which he incorrectly stated that his place of birth is: `[Village 1], Ghazni, Afghanistan', and not 'Quetta, Pakistan'.
    • Question 8 of Form 80 in which he incorrectly stated that his citizenship is 'Afghan', and not 'Pakistani'.
    • Question 11 of Form 80 - 'Are you a dual citizen or have you held any other citizenship?' - in which he incorrectly recorded `No' (tick box), and not 'Pakistani'.
    • Question 13 of Form 80 - 'Details of all passports ever issued to you' - in which he incorrectly recorded 'N/A', instead of Pakistan passport number [Number]'.
  3. Given the evidence explained above, I consider that the visa holder has not complied with section 101(b) of the Act because he has provided incorrect answers in relation to the following information provided in his Statutory Declaration signed [in] March 2010:
    • That he is [age] years old, as his Pakistan passport states that he was born in [Date 2].
    • That he was born in Afghanistan, as his Pakistan passport states he was born in Pakistan.
    • That he holds an adverse profile in Afghanistan, as he does not because he is from Pakistan.

Section 103

46. Given the evidence explained above, I consider that the visa holder has not complied with

Section 103 of the Act because the department has established that the visa holder is not [applicant name], born in, and a citizen of, Afghanistan; but [Name 1], born in, and a citizen of, Pakistan. A Taskera can only be issued to a citizen of Afghanistan. The Taskera that the visa holder presented to the department [in] July 2013 and [in] September 2015 cannot be a genuine document as it does not reflect the visa holder's genuine identity and citizenship and as such, I am satisfied that the visa holder has presented a bogus document to the department.

PART C: DECISION ABOUT NONCOMPLIANCE (S 108)

Section 108 of the Migration Act 1958 provides:

The minister is to:

(a) consider any written response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(b) decide whether there was non-compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.

Does the visa holder agree that there was non-compliance? No

If no, reasons why the visa holder disputes that there was non-compliance:

  1. The visa holder asserts that he is [applicant name], date of birth [Date 1], citizen of Afghanistan. The visa holder asserts that the Taskera document in his possession is genuine.
  2. In a written statement dated 27 September 2015 the visa holder's Migration Agent provided the following reasons why the visa holder disputes that there was non-compliance:
    • That he never lied as to his mode of arrival in Australia, and that he entered Australia by air with the help of a people smuggler using a passport that he did not see or know the name under which it was issued.
    • That at question 26 of the Form 866C he wrote 'unauthorised' for lack of a more appropriate option, such as 'false passport', or 'by aeroplane'.
    • That at the time of completing the form he was a minor - [age] years-old - and was illiterate.
    • That the [solicitor] appointed to complete the form on the visa holder's behalf chose the option 'unauthorised' for lack of a better option.
    • That he never stated that he had arrived as an unauthorised boat arrival as stated in the first NOICC (this error was corrected in the second NOICC which deleted any reference to arrival by boat).
    • That incorrect dates of arrival for [Name 1] and [applicant name] had been stated by the delegate in the NOICC and as such it is impossible to have any confidence of when [Name 1] may have arrived in Australia (this error was corrected in the second NOICC which corrected the dates in question).
    • That he maintains that the answers he gave on his 866 Application as listed on page 3 of the NOICC are correct - he also stated at the time that he was not sure of his precise date of birth - as is common to people from Afghanistan and numerous other countries.

That in regard to the department's Facial Image Comparison Report, documented experience and research over many years raises serious questions as to the validity of these methods of attempting to identify individuals and raises serious doubts as to the accuracy of the comparisons of photographs and facial imaging of the Hazara caseload.

  1. I have considered carefully the applicant's evidence and his representative's submissions, however I do not consider him to be a credible witness and I find that he is a Pakistani citizen and not an Afghan citizen and that he has given incorrect answers and submitted a bogus document and that he has not complied with both s.101(b) and s.103 of the Act. I am of this view for the following reasons:
    • A facial image comparison report, dated [in] August 2014, assessed images of the applicant with an image of [Name 1] in his [temporary] visa application and the specialist found that the images represented the same person. I have looked at the images and there is a very strong resemblance and persons look identical. At the hearing, the applicant commented that he was younger at the time and that people smugglers can provide any documents including Pakistani documents and that most Afghan people use false passports when they come to Australia. I have considered his comments but I do not consider they satisfactorily address why the images are of the same person. I consider these facts support that the applicant is [Name 1] (and a Pakistani citizen).
    • Checks of Departmental databases showed that [Name 1] (a Pakistani national) entered Australia at [named] Airport with his [father] [in] January 2010 on [temporary] visas. [Name 1] has not departed Australia and is residing unlawfully in the community but [his father] departed [in] April 2011. The last recorded address that the Department has of [his father] is [address in Australia]. In an identity interview with the Department [in] May 2015 the applicant confirmed that he had been living at that address for [number] years. At the hearing, the applicant commented that the house belongs to [a person] who is his guardian and that there were others who had lived there. I have considered his comments but I do not consider they satisfactorily address the remarkable commonality of this address. I consider these facts further support that the applicant is [Name 1] (and a Pakistani citizen).
    • In [Name 1's] [temporary] visa application there was a copy of his Pakistani birth certificate which lists his parent's address as [an address in] Quetta, Pakistan. In the applicant's identity interview with the Department [in] May 2015, he confirmed that his father and [siblings] were living at this same address. The applicant [applied] for [a different] visa lodged [in] January 2012 for his father and [siblings] which listed their residential addresses as this same one. At the hearing, the applicant commented that he had not filled in those addresses and the form was sent from Pakistan and he did not know who filled in the form. I have considered his comments but I do not consider they satisfactorily address the remarkable commonality of this address. I consider these facts further support that the applicant is [Name 1] (and a Pakistani citizen).
    • Departmental movement records indicate that the applicant departed Australia [in] July 2013. They also show that he travelled with [Name 1's] [Relative 1] and that they checked in at the exact same time. [Name 1's] and [his father's] [temporary] visa applications were sponsored [this Relative 1]. At the hearing, the applicant commented that if he had departed with her, he would have come back with her and that it could have been a lot of other Pakistanis. I have considered his comments but I do not consider they satisfactorily address the matter noting that the applicant was unwilling to tell the Tribunal who it was he travelled with on this date. I consider these facts further support that he actually is [Name 1] (and a Pakistani citizen).
    • The applicant has submitted an Afghan taskera that was issued [in] 2013. However, in his identity interview with the Department [in] May 2015 he said he did not have a taskera because his parents never arranged to get you one. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) have reported that there is widespread concern regarding the availability of fraudulent Afghan identity documents such as taskera and that genuine ones can be obtained using false documentation.[1] At the hearing, the applicant did not respond to these matters other than saying his father had posted him the taskera. I do not consider this to be a satisfactory explanation and I consider these facts further support that he actually is [Name 1] (and a Pakistani citizen).
  2. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) and s.103 of the Act by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

Should the visa be cancelled?

  1. As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).
  2. In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant's response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:

• the correct information
• the content of the genuine document (if any)
• whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document
• the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
• the present circumstances of the visa holder
• the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
• any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister
• the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
• any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
• any contribution made by the holder to the community.

  1. Whilst these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi [2010] FCAFC 145; (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department's Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 'General visa cancellation powers'. This policy requires delegates to also have regard to matters such as whether the visa would have been granted if the correct information had been given, whether there are persons in Australia whose visa would, or may, be automatically cancelled under s.140 of the Act, and whether the visa cancellation may result in Australia breaching its international obligations.

The correct information and the content of any genuine document (if any)

  1. The correct information is that the applicant is [Name 1] and is a Pakistani citizen. I further find that the Pakistani passport issued to the applicant in the name of [Name 1] is a legitimately obtained and genuine document. I do not consider the taskera to be a genuine document and I find that it was fraudulently obtained. Having considered these factors, I have given them significant weight as factors which support the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

Whether the decision to grant a visa (or immigration clear the visa holder) was based, wholly or partly on the incorrect information (or a bogus document)

  1. I consider that the decision to grant the visa was based wholly (and partly) on the incorrect information and had the correct information been known the delegate would not have been satisfied that the applicant was a citizen of Afghanistan and that he would not have granted the visa. I have given significant weight to this factor as supporting the cancellation of his visa.

The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

  1. I find that the applicant wilfully and deliberately provided incorrect information and a bogus document to the Department of Immigration. However, I note the applicant was [the age of a minor] when he applied for the protection visa and provided the incorrect information which reduces the weight I have given to this factor. He was, however, an adult when he submitted the bogus document. I have therefore overall given fairly significant weight to this factor as supporting the cancellation of his visa.

The present circumstances of the visa holder

  1. The applicant has claimed that he has been living in stress due to the process of his visa cancellation. However, he has not submitted any medical evidence to support this I have placed little weight on his present circumstances as a reason not to cancel the visa.

The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

  1. The applicant continues to maintain that he has not provided incorrect information or a bogus document. Having considered this factor, I place only limited weight on it as a reason to not cancel the visa.

The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

  1. The applicant lodged his protection visa application form with the incorrect answers in March 2010 which is a significant period of time ago. However, the provision of the bogus document was far more recent and I have given some weight to this factor as supporting the cancellation of his visa.

Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

  1. There are no other known instances of non-compliance by the applicant and I have given this factor some weight as a reason not to cancel the visa.

Any other breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

  1. There are no other breaches of the law known to the Tribunal and I have given this factor some weight as a reason not to cancel the visa.

Any contribution made by the holder to the community

  1. At the hearing the applicant stated he had worked as [an occupation] and had studied. I have given these matters some weight as a reason not to cancel the visa.

Non-refoulement obligations

  1. I accept that if the applicant's visa is cancelled, he may have to return to Pakistan. However, I find that if he returns there, Australia will be in breach of its non-refoulement obligations. I have considered the International Treaties Obligation Assessment undertaken by the Department and like it have utilised various provisions of the Migration Act for assessing Australia's non-refoulement obligations arising under the Refugees Convention, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  2. The information before me (including the [temporary] visa application, the Pakistani birth certificate and the passport) strongly indicates that the applicant was born in and was a resident of Quetta, Pakistan. The applicant has consistently claimed to be a Hazara, he physically resembles one and speaks Dari and Hazaragi. I am therefore satisfied that he is a Hazara and that his home area is Quetta, Baluchistan.
  3. I have taken into account country information that there is ongoing violence against Hazara Shias in Quetta, Baluchistan. I find that because Hazaras are physically and ethnically distinct they are targeted by militant groups to a greater extent than other Shias in Baluchistan.[2] DFAT assess that the major threat to Shias in Pakistan (including Hazaras) comes from anti-Shia and militant groups, including Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and Jundullah, as well as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).[3] The agendas of both LeJ and SSP include anti-Shia sentiments and LeJ has claimed responsibility for attacks on Hazaras in Quetta.[4] In an open letter in November 2012, LeJ leaders declared their intention to 'abolish the impure sect' of 'Shias and Hazara Shias'. Other militant groups express strong anti-Shia sentiments. Country information confirms that numerous shootings and suicide attacks on Shia Hazaras took place in Quetta in the years prior to the applicant's departure.[5] The security situation for Hazara Shias in Quetta is such that Hazaras tend to stay within two enclaves, where they enjoy a greater degree of security, and security forces escort Hazaras travelling to and from their workplaces in Quetta.[6] The United States Department of State has reported that in 2015, Hazara Shias in Quetta continued to face discrimination and threats of violence and were unable to move freely outside of Quetta's two Hazara-populated enclaves.[7] A report in Dawn newspaper in 2014 provides the following assessment of the situation for Hazaras in Quetta:

Hazaras live a ghetto existence, fearful of going about the normal business of life. Hazara religious pilgrims, students, shopkeepers, vegetable sellers, doctors and other professionals have been targeted leading to not just widespread fear but increasingly restricted movement leading to a ghettoization of community members, increasing economic hardship and curtailed access to education.[8]

  1. More recent information confirms that the situation for Shias in Quetta has not improved. According to the most recent United States Department of State report:

Members of the Hazara ethnic minority, who are Shi'a, continued to face discrimination and threats of violence in Quetta, Balochistan. According to press reports and other sources, they were unable to move freely outside of Quetta's two Hazara-populated enclaves. Consumer goods in those enclaves were available only at inflated prices, and Hazaras reported an inability to find employment or pursue higher education. They also alleged government agencies discriminated against Hazaras in issuing identification cards and passports. To avoid sparking violent incidents, authorities confined Shi'a religious processions to the Hazara enclaves. Anti-Shi'a graffiti was common in Quetta. According to multiple media reports, assailants killed at least 16 persons in attacks against Hazara Shi'as during the year. Media reported that on July 6, gunmen killed two Hazaras and a police officer in front of a passport office in Quetta; on July 17, a suicide bomber attempting to enter a Hazara neighborhood in Quetta blew himself up, killing two; and on July 28, gunmen on a motorcycle killed two Hazaras in Quetta.[9]

  1. I have also taken into account the following assessment as to the situation for Hazara Shias:

Hazaras are generally unarmed, easily identifiable and utterly helpless - in short, easy to kill. Of course, they are being targeted as part of a broader exercise in targeting all Pakistan Shias but it is equally true that Hazara suffer from double jeopardy - being ethnically distinct in addition to being Shia.[10]

  1. I have had regard to information from DFAT indicating that levels of sectarian violence have decreased throughout Pakistan since 2014 following military operations against terrorist and militant group.[11] In Baluchistan sectarian attacks have declined following targeting by security forces of prominent militant leaders, including those of the LeJ.[12] However, notwithstanding the reported decline in violence, DFAT has assessed that there is a moderate level of sectarian violence in Balochistan and despite a decline in the number of attacks Hazara Shias remain segregated and are a key target of militant groups.[13] Other sources report numerous attacks on Hazara Shias in public areas in Quetta in 2015.[14] According to DFAT, while LeJ has not claimed responsibility for any attacks between June 2014 and September 2015, it remains intact and has sleeper cells in major urban centres across Pakistan.[15] Thus, even with the decline in violence, there were ten sectarian attacks in Balochistan in 2015, seven of which specifically targeted Hazaras, two which targeted Shias in Quetta, and a further attempted attack near a Hazara area.[16] Furthermore, the first quarter of 2016 saw a slight upsurge in violence, with the Balochistan region recording the second highest number of casualties from violence across Pakistan in that period (181 deaths and 79 injuries), although not all of these were from sectarian attacks.[17] Considering the totality of this information, I find that there is a real chance and real risk that the applicant would suffer serious harm or significant harm in Quetta for reasons of his race and religion.

State protection

  1. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country: s.5J(2) of the Migration Act. Section 5LA(1) provides that effective protection measures are available if protection against persecution could be provided to the person by either the relevant State, or a party or organisation (including an international organisation) that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of its territory, and that State, party or organisation is willing and able to offer such protection. A relevant State, party or organisation is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if the person can access the protection, and the protection is durable and, in the case of protection by the relevant State, the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system: s.5LA(2).
  2. Under s.36(2B)(b) of the Act, there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country if the tribunal is satisfied that the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. That is, the level of protection must be such to reduce the risk of the applicant being significantly harmed to something less than a 'real risk': MIAC v MZYYL [2012] FCAFC 147.
  3. The applicant has claimed that the Pakistani government is unwilling and unable to protect Hazaras. I do not accept that the government is unwilling to protect the Hazara community, but I consider that due to "capacity constraints" and other factors their ability to do so is limited. [18] DFAT has stated that although the authorities are generally willing to protect Shia communities and instigate various security measures, capacity constraints limit the governments' abilities to protect the community[19] and the effectiveness of prosecutions.[20] Similarly, the US Department of State reports that police often failed to protect members of religious minorities, including Shias, although there have been improvements.[21] The US Commission on International Religious Freedom also assesses that despite government efforts and positive rulings by the Supreme Court, the government failed to provide adequate protection to targeted groups or to prosecute perpetrators or those calling for violence.[22] In view of this information, I find that the authorities are unable to provide protection in Quetta, such that the applicant would not be able to access effective protection measures and that there remains a real risk of significant harm if the applicant returns to Quetta or elsewhere in Baluchistan.

Relocation

  1. Under s.36(2B)(a) of the Act, there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country if the tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. That relocation must be 'reasonable' is also a requirement when considering the definition of 'refugee' and the tribunal draws guidance from the judgments of the High Court in SZATV v MIAC and SZFDV v MIAC which held that whether relocation is reasonable, in the sense of 'practicable', must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country: SZATV v MIAC [2007] HCA 40; (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC [2007] HCA 41; (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne & Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
  2. I consider that the highly volatile nature of the situation with regard to the actions of extremist groups and individuals in Pakistan makes it difficult to assess the risks for the applicant upon his return to Pakistan. I also consider that the difficulties in determining the risks for the applicant are exacerbated by the focus of the independent evidence on the situation for Shias as a whole, of which Hazaras comprise only a very small minority. The reports are also lacking in relation to information on the ability of Hazaras to find employment, housing and access to welfare services. However, having considered the independent evidence, I consider that some conclusions can be drawn. These are firstly that the distinctive physical features of Hazaras increase the risk of a targeted attack.[23] Second, the reports indicate that there are between 600,000 to one million Hazaras living in Pakistan, the largest Hazara community resides in Quetta, Balochistan, where I have found above that the applicant has faces a real chance or real risk of serious harm and significant harm, and other communities are much smaller.[24] Having regard to this information, I have considered whether the applicant is able to relocate to another part of Pakistan to avoid the real risk of significant harm in his home area.
  3. The independent evidence indicates that in response to sectarian attacks in Quetta, 'many hundreds' have migrated to Karachi[25] and approximately 15,000 Hazaras reside in Karachi. In March 2012, DFAT advised the Department that there are 'two sizeable communities in Karachi (500-1000 families)'.[26] An October 2011 report in The News also states that 'over 13,000 members of the [Hazara] community are living in Karachi'.[27] Although reports from 2014 continued to indicate that Hazaras in Karachi have been the subject of attacks, both targeted and random[28] and food outlets in some of the areas in which Hazaras in Karachi reside have also been targeted in what police believe are sectarian attacks,[29] more recent reports from various sources indicate that there has been a significant decline in terrorist incidents in Karachi.
  4. Whilst accepting the volatile nature of extremism in Pakistan and evidence of previous targeting of Hazara Shias in Karachi, I am not satisfied on the basis of evidence indicating a significant reduction in terrorism and crime related incidents in Karachi,[30] that there is a real chance or real risk that the applicant would suffer serious harm or significant harm because he is a Hazara Shia if he moved to Karachi.
  5. I have also considered whether there are other parts of Pakistan, including places such as Lahore, Islamabad, Rawalapindi or FATA, where the applicant could relocate without suffering serious harm because he is a Hazara Shia. Despite continuing attacks against Shias throughout Pakistan, I do not accept that the independent evidence supports a conclusion that there is a real chance or real risk that the applicant would suffer serious harm or significant harm if he relocated to these parts of Pakistan, or even some other parts of Pakistan.[31]
  6. In assessing complimentary protection, I must also consider whether it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another part of Pakistan. DFAT advises that because of Pakistan's size and diversity there are viable relocation options for most religious and ethnic minorities,[32] but it does not specify those ethnic groups for which this might not be viable. In terms of Islamabad, the independent evidence indicates that Islamabad is home to mixed ethnic and religious communities, including a large Shia community and a small Hazara community.[33] DFAT also assesses that Shias can relocate with relative ease and frequency because of family and community networks throughout Pakistan, and states that migrant communities provide a support network to different ethnic groups.[34] I have concerns that there is a lack of information in relation to the Hazara community, as distinct from the significant Shia community, which DFAT has assessed is able to relocate easily because of family and tribal networks. Much of the information about the viability of relocation addresses the situation of Shias generally. Hazara Shias make up only one per cent of the population of Pakistan, whereas Shias make up 20 per cent.[35] As previously stated, unlike Shias from other ethnic groups, Hazara Shias are also readily identifiable because of their distinctive facial features. There also no specific information about the size of the Hazara Shia communities in Lahore or Rawalpindi or Islamabad, and they are described by DFAT as "small". The DFAT report indicates that whilst there are significant numbers of Shias in the autonomous region of Gilgit-Baltistan, Peshawar, Kohat, Hangu and Dera Ismail Kahn in Khyber Pathunkhwa, but does not specify the size of the Hazara Shia community in those places.
  7. There is no information about the size of the Hazara Shia communities in other parts of Pakistan, or about whether broader Shia communities made up of other ethnic groups would provide the kind of social networks and support to a Hazara Shia that the applicant would need in order to find employment and accommodation. As discussed above, I consider that the evidence in relation to the situation for Hazara Shias is somewhat inconclusive in relation to the opportunities for Shia Hazaras to relocate elsewhere in Pakistan, given that the evidence primarily focuses on the situation for Shias generally and does not differentiate between targeted attacks on Shias and those on the Hazara Shias. The evidence is also somewhat inconclusive in relation to employment and educational opportunities for Hazara Shias outside of the regions where they have traditionally congregated, such as in Quetta.
  8. I have taken into account the applicant's evidence that he has no other family outside Quetta; this is consistent with country information that indicates that most Hazaras in Pakistan reside in Quetta.[36] The applicant has claimed that he did not work before coming to Australia and I accept this given he arrived when he was [age] years old. He said he had done several jobs in Australia including working as [specified occupations]. However, I consider his employment skills are relatively limited.
  9. Having considered all of the available information about the possibility of relocation for Hazara Shias within Pakistan, and specifically to Karachi, Islamabad or Lahore, including the security situation, the presence of a Hazara Shia community, the personal characteristics and work experience of the applicant and the impact of those on his capacity to survive without his family, obtain employment and a place to live, I find that it is not reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk of significant harm and that therefore s.36(2B)(a) does not apply in his case.
  10. I further find that the real risk is one faced by the applicant personally and is not one faced by the population of the country generally so s.36(2B)(c) does not apply in his case.
  11. I find that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Pakistan there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
  12. Given the applicant's individual circumstances and the totality of the country information before me, I find that Australia will be in breach of its non-refoulement obligations and I have given this factor a very significant degree of weight that supports not cancelling the visa.

Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s.140

  1. There are no persons in Australia whose visas would or may be cancelled under s.140A and I have given this factor no weight.

Interests of children in Australia

  1. There are no children in Australia whose interests will be affected and I have given this factor no weight.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision, such as:
• whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of the cancellation decision , if a person cannot be removed from Australia consistently with Australia's non-refoulement obligations
• whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid application for a visa without the Minister personally intervening (for example, s46A, s46B, s48, s48A, s91E, s91K and s91P of the Act) and
• whether, upon cancellation, the person would become an unlawful non-citizen (unless the person holds another visa that is in effect) and liable to be detained under s189, and liable for removal under s198.

  1. I accept that upon cancellation, the applicant would become an unlawful non-citizen, be liable to be detained and liable for removal. However, noting that he cannot be removed from Australia consistently with Australia's non-refoulment obligations and that he will not be able to make any valid application for any visa without the Minister personally intervening. I have given significant weight to these factors as reasons that support not cancelling the visa.

Conclusion

  1. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Further, having regard in their totality to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

DECISION

  1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.



David Corrigan
Member

ATTACHMENT - Relevant Extracts from the Migration Act 1958:

  1. Interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

  1. Interpretation

In this Subdivision:

application form, in relation to a noncitizen, means a form on which a noncitizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.

passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).

Note: Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).

  1. Completion of visa application

A noncitizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.

  1. Information is answer

Any information that a noncitizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the noncitizen's application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the noncitizen's application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.

  1. Incorrect answers

For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.

  1. Visa applications to be correct

A noncitizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:

(a) all questions on it are answered; and

(b) no incorrect answers are given or provided.

  1. Bogus documents not to be given etc.

A noncitizen must not give, present, [produce][*] or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, the Immigration Assessment Authority, or the Tribunal performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented, [produced][*] or provided.

  1. Notice of incorrect applications

(1) If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:

(a) giving particulars of the possible noncompliance; and

(b) stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:

(i) if the holder disputes that there was noncompliance:

(A) shows that there was compliance; and

(B) in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under subsubparagraph (A), there was noncompliance-shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or

(ii) if the holder accepts that there was noncompliance:

(A) give reasons for the noncompliance; and

(B) shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and

(c) stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:

(i) if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response-when that notice is given; or

(ii) if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period-when the response is given; or

(iii) otherwise-at the end of that period; and

(d) setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and

(e) informing the holder that the holder's obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and

(f) requiring the holder:

(i) to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and

(ii) if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister's decision on whether there was noncompliance by the holder-to tell the Minister the changed address.

(1A) The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:

(a) in respect of the holder of a temporary visa-the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or

(b) otherwise-14 days.

(1B) Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:

(a) visas of a stated class; or

(b) visa holders in stated circumstances; or

(c) visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or

(d) visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.

(2) If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.


[1] Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Afghanistan, 18 September 2016.
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[4] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[5] South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), "Sectarian Violence in Pakistan", 13 December 2015, p. 2.
[6] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[7] US Department of State, "Pakistan - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 ", 13 April 2016, section 6.
[8] Syed, M 2014, 'Pakistan: A State of Siege', Dawn, 27 January <http://www.dawn.com/news/1082697/a-state-of-siege
[9] US Department of State, "Pakistan - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 ", 13 April 2016, OGD95BE926173, section 6.
[10] Syed M 2014, 'Pakistan: A State of Siege', Dawn, 27 January.
[11] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[12] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[13] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[14] South Asia Terrorism Portal, "Sectarian Violence in Pakistan", 13 December 2015, p. 2, 3; US Department of State, "Pakistan - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 ", 13 April 2016, section 6.
[15] South Asia Terrorism Portal,"Sectarian Violence in Pakistan", 13 December 2015, p. 2, 3; US Department of State, "Pakistan - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 ", 13 April 2016, section 6.
[16] South Asia Terrorism Portal, "Sectarian Violence in Pakistan", 13 December 2015, p. 2, 3; US Department of State, "Pakistan - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 ", 13 April 2016, section 6.
[17] Center for Research and Security Studies, "CRSS Quarterly Security Report - Q1, 2016", 2 May 2016, p.1-2, 5.
[18] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[19] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[20] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[21] US Department of State, "Pakistan - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 ", 13 April 2016, section 1(d).
[22] United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), "USCIRF Annual Report 2015 - Pakistan", 30 April 2015, p.2.
[23] Hazara Network 2011, Lashkar-E Jhangvi (Lej) Blamed For Killing Of Hazaras In Quetta, Pakistan, source: Central Asia Online, 23 July <http://www.hazaranetwork.com/forum/topics/lashkar-e-jhangvi-lej-blamed-f> .
[24] Sajjad, S B 2013, '"Intent to Destroy": Violence against Shias in Pakistan', Extremism Watch: Mapping Conflict Trends in Pakistan 2011-2012, Jinnah Institute, p.23 <http://jinnah-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/EW1.pdf?bcsi_scan_2b9cb3cfb553fadb=0&bcsi_scan_filename=EW1.pdf
[25] Human Rights Watch 2014, World Report 2014 - Pakistan, 21 January <http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/pakistan
[26] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2012, Pakistan: Hazaras in Pakistan, 1 & 9 March <CX 283938>
[27] Ali, R 2011, 'Hazaras not safe even in Karachi', The News, source: Hazara News Pakistan, 7 October <http://hazaranewspakistan.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/hazaras-not-safe-even-in-karachi/
[28] DFAT Thematic Report: Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan (26 March 2014); 'Sunday bloody Sunday: Four people gunned down, one chopped up' 2012, Express Tribune, 14 May CISNET Pakistan CX287026; 'Karachi community member killed' 2012, The News, 19 February CISNET Pakistan CX281807.
[29] 'Targeted attacks: Police ask shops to close early for safety' 2014, The Express Tribune, 20 February.
[30] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[31]Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[32] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[33] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[34] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[35] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[36] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report Shias in Pakistan, 15 January 2016.
[*] This wording applies to documents given, presented, produced or provided on or after 4 November 2014: Schedule 7 to Counter Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (No.116, 2014).

Search Refworld

Countries