BOQ20 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1909

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by the Immigration Assessment Authority. In that decision, the Authority affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a Class XE Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa (**"**SHEV").
2. In his written submissions, the applicant noted in paragraph 2 that:

The applicant is a national of Pakistan, from [X] village in the Lower Kurram District in Kurram Agency, in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province. He is Pashtun Turi ethnicity and Shia Muslim. He arrived by boat on 4 July 2013.

1. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a province of Pakistan. Kurram District is a region within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The capital of Kurram District is Parachinar, which is in the north west of Kurram District. The applicant's home village is about 100km from Parachinar, and in the south of Kurram District.
2. The Authority summarised the applicant's claims in paragraph 18 of its reasons for decision as follows:
   • The applicant is a Shia Turi male of Pashtun ethnicity from [X] in Kurram District, in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP);
   • Life in Pakistan was dangerous due to sectarian conflict between Shias and Sunnis;
   • The applicant and his family received direct threats from the Taliban;
   • People, including members of the applicant's family, were killed in the violence;
   • The applicant has been shot at by the Taliban on two occasions;
   • If returned to Pakistan, the applicant fears he will be harmed by the Taliban because his father is a Malik;
   • He also fears he will be kidnapped, harmed or killed, by the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e Jhangvi (LeJ), Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ), Islamic State or other militant groups, due to:
     • - his religion
     • - his ethnicity
     • - his tribal identity
     • - his place of origin
     • - his time spent in Australia/a western country.

1. In his written submissions, the applicant provided the following summary of the Authority's reasons for decision:
   1. At [34], the Authority placed weight on the applicant's FATA Disaster Management Authority (displacement form) showing that he and his family were displaced from [X] to Parachinar in October 2008 due to sectarian violence, where they stayed with a host family until at least August 2011. At [40], the Authority accepted that "the applicant and his family were displaced to Parachinar in 2008 due to conflict in [X] village.".
   2. At [37]: "Country information indicates that the Kurram region has a history of violence between Sunni and Shia groups. DFAT reports that between 2008 and 2014 Turis (who are also Shia), who mostly live in Parachinar, faced significant violence. The information before me also indicates that the conflict destroyed much of the area's health, education and agriculture infrastructure, while the closure of the Thall-Parachinar road devastated trade and development work in Kurram, severely damaging the economy. I accept the applicant's claims in respect of the historical security situation and conflict in and around his home area and the broader region. I also accept that he lost family members and a friend as a result of the conflict."
   3. At [45], the Authority accepted that "country information supports that high profile community leaders can be targeted for harm in Pakistan", but went on to distinguish the case of the applicant's father, who the Authority accepted was a Malik or tribal leader: "when I consider the lack of threats or harm faced by the applicant's father as a Malik/village elder in [X], and the country information before me about the attacks on members on the Turi tribe and/or Shias, the improved security situation, and the implementation of security measures in KP (discussed in detail below), I am not satisfied the applicant's father is a person of adverse interest to militant groups as a Malik in [X] or as a village elder." The Authority concluded: "On the information before me, I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of harm in Pakistan due to his father's position of Malik in [X], or as a village elder".
   4. At [47], the Authority acknowledged the risk assessment of the DFAT 2019 Pakistan report that: "Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith". The Authority also wrote: "In respect of KP, DFAT assesses that the province has a low level of sectarian violence, within the context of a moderate level of militant and criminal violence across the region, but notes that the risk of sectarian violence for civilians in Kurram Agency, particularly Parachinar, is higher than in other parts of the former FATA".
   5. At [48]: "As noted in the post-SHEV interview submissions, there were insurgent attacks in Parachinar in 2017. DFAT reports that in the first half of 2017 there were three attacks targeting members of the Turi tribe in Parachinar due to their Shia faith, with more than 120 people killed. However, in 2018 there was a decrease in reports of attacks against Turis due to the improved security situation in Parachinar and Kurram Agency. DFAT assessed that this trend would likely continue in 2019, noting that KP had seen a significant reduction in militant violence in recent years and that the security situation in Parachinar had improved. DFAT assesses that Turis face a similar risk of official discrimination as other Pashtuns based on ethnicity, and no additional risk of official discrimination based on their religion. DFAT also refer to unnamed media that reports that discrimination and violence towards Shia tribes, particularly Turis, remains significant in Kurram Agency due to state concerns regarding Iranian influence and greater presence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and that Turis face some risk of violence if travelling for pilgrimage on the road to Iran or Iraq. Overall, DFAT assesses that Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith." (applicant's emphasis)
   6. [49] of the Authority's decision related to tensions in urban centres and official discrimination. In [50] and [51], the Authority analysed the materials relied on in support of the applicant's claim that he faced harm because Turis were imputed to have pro-US and pro-Iran beliefs. This analysis was not linked to DFAT's assessment of 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence for Turis in all of Kurram Agency because of their Shia faith. At [52], the Authority considered a letter of support and found it to "[reiterate] other reporting... from credible sources about these matters including the violence faced by Shias in Pakistan". From [53] to [61], the Authority considered information about the history and reported incidents of violence in Kurram Agency, with a focus on Parachinar and on the impossibility of relocation. Other than in [60], the Authority summarised but did not analyse the information in those paragraphs. Nothing in those paragraphs contradicted the DFAT assessment that Turis faced a 'moderate risk' of violence in all of Kurram Agency because of their Shia faith.
   7. Nothing in the Authority's consideration of claims and sources above gave rise to any discernible explanation for its conclusion at [62]:

"Having had regard to all of the information before me, including the country information, I accept that Shias have been targeted and attacked in Kurram and Parachinar by anti-Shia elements in the past. I also acknowledge the opinion of various persons who the applicant's representative described as 'prominent members of the community' about the risks faced by Shias in Parachinar and the broader region, although I have some concerns as to the source of some of that information. Having considered the weight of independent reports before me about the attacks on members of the Turi tribe and/or Shias, the improved security situation, and the implementation of security measures in KP and across the country, I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of harm for the reasons claimed."

1. That conclusion was supported at [63] by reasoning that Shias in [X] and Parachinar do not appear to be precluded, on the country information, from practising their religion or travelling safely between the two areas, and by reasoning that the applicant's father had not come to harm, and owns farmland and buys and sells cars.
2. At [64], the Authority noted the applicant's arguments about the cyclical nature of violence in Pakistan and the submissions about repression of media reporting on sectarian violence in Pakistan. The Authority preferred the country information "about the situation in [the applicant's] home area and the country more broadly". However, it did not engage with the DFAT risk assessment.
3. At [65], the Authority concluded: "I acknowledge DFAT's assessment that the risk of sectarian violence for civilians in Parachinar (a one hour drive from the applicant's village) is higher compared to other parts of the former FATA. I also acknowledge there has been a history of sectarian violence in Kurram Agency, including near the applicant's home area, and I cannot discount the possibility that further attacks may happen in the future. However, on the information before me, I find the chance that the applicant would be harmed by the Taliban or other extremist groups like LEJ, SSP and Islamic State now or in the foreseeable future due to his religion, his ethnicity, his tribal identity, his place of origin, as a Shia Turi, as a Shia Turi from [X], as a Shia Turi from Kurram Agency, or any combination of these profiles, to not rise to a real chance. I note DFAT's assessment that there exists a moderate level of militant and criminal violence in the wider province of KP; however, there is no indication in the country information that this is an issue affecting the applicant's home or applicant's home or surrounding area."

(a) his application filed on 17 April 2020, amended on 20 December 2024 and further amended on 30 July 2025 ("the application");

(b) his written submissions filed on 30 July 2025;

(c) the affidavit affirmed by Daniel Temme on 30 July 2025, which attached a copy of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ("DFAT") Country Information Report for Pakistan dated 20 February 2019; and

(d) the court book filed on 16 December 2021.

(a) his written submissions filed on 12 August 2025; and

(b) the court book filed on 16 December 2021.

1. The first ground of review in the application was not pressed.

1. The second ground of review in the application is:

The Authority misunderstood or misapplied the test under s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") when assessing the applicant's claims for complementary protection.

Particulars

2.1 The Authority did not separately or independently assess the applicant's complementary protection claims, but rather concluded that they should be rejected 'based on the same information, and for the same reasons set out' in relation to the claims under s.36(2)(a) of the Act;

2.2 In so concluding, the Authority misunderstood the distinction between the two limbs of s.36(2) - specifically, the absence of a 'nexus' to one of the factors set out at s.5J(1)(a) and the distinct forms of harm specified at s.36(2A).

2.3 There was insufficient consideration of generalised violence by the Authority to justify rejecting the applicant's complementary protection claims, given the considerable materials filed in support of an argument on generalised violence rather than on specific s.5J(1)(a) factors.

1. Subsection 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") provided that:

A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; ...

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.

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.

1. In paragraph 47 of its reasons for decision, the Authority said:

... In respect of [Khyber Pakhtunkhwa], DFAT assesses that the province has a low level of sectarian violence, within the context of a moderate level of militant and criminal violence across the region ...

1. That statement was based on paragraph 3.108 of the DFAT report where it was said that:

... Overall, DFAT assesses that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a low level of sectarian violence, within the context of a moderate level of militant and criminal violence across the province. ...

1. The applicant proceeded on the basis that the "moderate level of ... criminal violence" referred to by DFAT was a reference to generalised violence, and thus, was a complementary protection issue. The applicant argued that the complementary protection issue therefore arose on the materials, even though the applicant did not explicitly raise that issue himself.
2. The Authority dealt with this point, in the course of considering the applicant's refugee claims, in paragraph 65 of its reasons for decision in the following terms:

... I note DFAT's assessment that there exists a moderate level of militant and criminal violence in the wider province of KP; however, there is no indication in the country information that this is an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area. I am not otherwise satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of harm on this basis. ...

1. Notably, in paragraph 65 of its reasons for decision, the Authority referred to harm, apparently meaning both serious and significant harm.
2. The Authority dealt separately with complementary protection issues later in its reasons for decision. The Authority found that the applicant did not face a real chance of significant harm for reasons connected with his psychological condition, and then said at paragraph 93 of its reasons for decision that:

I have otherwise found that the applicant does not face a real chance of any harm in Pakistan for the reasons claimed. Based on the same information, and for the reasons set out above, I find he does not have a real risk of suffering significant harm in Pakistan.

1. The Authority did not specifically deal with the issue of generalised or criminal violence under the heading of complementary protection.
2. The Minister disputed that the issue of generalised violence arose on the materials and thus needed to be considered by the Authority. I consider that the issue clearly did arise on the materials, namely, in the DFAT report at paragraph 3.108, unless the Authority did not accept the relevant sentence of the DFAT report. That is because, in relation to claims that were not articulated but which arise from the materials, it is only claims that arise from established facts that the Authority is required to consider.
3. The Minister argued that the Authority did not accept the relevant sentence of the DFAT report, and so it was not an established fact. The Minister said that, after noting DFAT's assessment that there was "a moderate level of militant and criminal violence in the wider province of KP", the Authority went on to say:

however, there is no indication in the country information that this is an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area.

1. The Minister argued this meant that the Authority did not accept DFAT's assessment that there was "a moderate level of ... criminal violence across the [KP] province", if "across the [KP] province" is understood as meaning everywhere within the province. That seems to me to be the only realistic meaning of "across the [KP] province". The applicant's home village was in the KP province.
2. By saying that there was no evidence that the issue of generalised or criminal violence was affecting the applicant's home area, the Authority was, in effect, rejecting the DFAT assessment that generalised or criminal violence was occurring across the whole KP province, and, in particular, in the applicant's home area.
3. Therefore, the claim that there was generalised violence in the applicant's home area did not arise on the materials that the Authority accepted, and it was not required to consider the issue. The Authority therefore did not err by not specifically considering the claim of generalised violence as part of its complementary protection assessment.
4. Although the failure to consider complementary protection was expressed more broadly in ground 2 itself, in argument, the ground was confined to the question of generalised violence.
5. However, in argument, the applicant attacked the Authority's conclusion about generalised violence not only on the failure to consider ground, but also on the irrationality ground. Irrationality was the crux of ground 4, which is discussed below. However, the irrationality point in ground 4 concerned a different issue. In any event, the applicant expanded his attack on the Authority's conclusion about generalised violence in oral argument without objection to include the irrationality point.
6. The applicant argued that the Authority had not given any explanation for its conclusion that generalised violence was not "an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area." That was in the context that the Authority, in the previous part of the sentence, had noted DFAT's report that there was generalised violence across the whole province of KP.
7. Contrary to the applicant's argument, the Authority did give an explanation for its conclusion that generalised violence was not an "an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area." That explanation was that there was "no indication in the country information that [generalised violence] is an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area."
8. However, there was an indication in the country information that generalised violence was an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area. That was the DFAT report that assessed that there was "a moderate level of ... criminal violence across the province." That meant there was a moderate level of generalised violence everywhere in the KP province, including in the applicant's home area.
9. At first blush, it seems irrational for the Authority to say that there was no indication in the country information of generalised violence in the applicant's home area when there was an indication in the country information of generalised violence in the applicant's home area.
10. The Minister argued that the Authority had sound reasons to depart from the DFAT report on the issue of generalised violence in the applicant's home area. The Minister noted that, at paragraph 63 of its reasons for decision, the Authority noted the applicant's concessions that his father continues to live in the applicant's home area, to farm land and to buy and sell cars without apparent difficulty. However, that is not an assessment of the risk of generalised violence. It is just one person's experience.
11. The Minister also noted that, at paragraphs 52 to 61 of its reasons for decision, the Authority considered various reports of violence in KP province, none of which occurred in the applicant's home area. However, these reports did not concern generalised violence, but concerned targeted violence.
12. More importantly, the Minister's points deal with the merits of the issue of whether the Authority could rationally have found that there was not a real risk of generalised violence in the applicant's home area.
13. However, the Authority's statement should be read, fairly, and without an eye finely attuned to error, as meaning that there was "no [specific] indication in the country information that [generalised violence] is an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area". That was true. It is a rational basis for the Authority's conclusions.
14. Ground 2 is not made out.

1. The third ground of review in the application was not pressed.

1. The fourth ground of review in the application is:

The Authority's finding that there was not a real chance of harm was irrational in that it could not rationally be reconciled with country information that the Authority accepted.

Particulars

4.1 The Authority accepted the DFAT assessment that "Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith" (Decision Record, [48]).

4.2 The Authority concluded that "Having considered the weight of independent reports before me about the attacks on members of the Turi tribe and/or Shias, the improved security situation, and the implementation of security measures in KP and across the country, I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of harm for the reasons claimed [that the applicant would be perceived as pro-Iran and pro-US], and that "given the weight of country information before me, I am not persuaded [that identified geopolitical] factors would lead the applicant to face a real chance of harm in his home area" (Decision Record, [62], [64])

4.3 The Authority's ultimate findings about the real chance of harm to the applicant in his home province cannot rationally be reconciled with the Authority's acceptance of DFAT country information which assessed the risk for Turis in Kurram Agency as "moderate".

4.4 This was especially so where:

4.4.1 the so-called "improvements" in safety referred to by the Authority are specifically factored into the DFAT risk assessment that there remained a moderate risk into the future, and cannot be grounds for the Authority to come to a different conclusion on risk: EMM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 1214 at [104]; and

4.4.2 the applicant's representative made explicit submissions about the cyclical nature of violence in Pakistan and put forward country information which corroborated, and did not detract from, DFAT's assessment of risk.

4.5 In the circumstances, it was irrational for the Authority to not explain why DFAT's assessment of risk did not apply to the applicant's situation in the reasonably foreseeable future. It should have shown a logical pathway of reasoning which illuminates the decision-maker's prediction: EMM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 1214 at [96].

1. Paragraphs 96 and 104 of EMM19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 1214 are as follows:
   1. The essence of the real chance test is that it is forward-looking, it is predictive. Assessment of the chance of harm in the reasonably foreseeable future should be made on the basis of probative material, without extending into guesswork. In some cases, past events alone will provide a reliable means of predicting future persecution. In other cases, where an environment is highly volatile or fluid, a limited past period may not be a reliable guide. Although it is an inexact science, there should be a logical pathway of reasoning which illuminates the decision-maker's prediction.

...

1. In the present case, the logic for departing from the country information is not so evident. As mentioned earlier, the 2019 DFAT report specifically factored-in a predicted downturn in violence as part of its assessment that there remained a moderate risk into the future. The Authority's observation that there had been no violence in an eight-month period after the publication of the report is simply consistent with the report - it is not evidence which departs from the DFAT prediction, it reinforces it.

1. The relevant passages of the Authority's reasons for decision are as follows:
   1. In its most recent report, DFAT assesses that Shias continue to face a threat from anti-Shia militant groups including LeJ, SSP (also known as ASWJ), and factions of the TTP. DFAT also assess that most Shias in Pakistan face a low risk of sectarian violence, but that the risk varies depending on geographical location and for members of specific groups. For example, DFAT assesses that 'high profile' Shias in Pakistan face a 'moderate risk' of violence. DFAT defines 'moderate risk' as it is aware of sufficient incidents to suggest a pattern of behaviour. In the former FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) of which Kurram Agency is a part, DFAT assesses that Shias face a 'low risk' of sectarian violence. DFAT defines 'low risk' as it is aware of incidents but has insufficient evidence to conclude they form a pattern. In respect of KP, DFAT assesses that the province has a low level of sectarian violence, within the context of a moderate level of militant and criminal violence across the region, but notes that the risk of sectarian violence for civilians in Kurram Agency, particularly Parachinar, is higher than in other parts of the former FATA. I accept the applicant's evidence that his village is about a one hour drive from Parachinar.
   2. As noted in the post-SHEV interview submissions, there were insurgent attacks in Parachinar in 2017. DFAT reports that in the first half of 2017 there were three attacks targeting members of the Turi tribe in Parachinar due to their Shia faith, with more than 120 people killed. However, in 2018 there was a decrease in reports of attacks against Turis due to the improved security situation in Parachinar and Kurram Agency. DFAT assessed that this trend would likely continue in 2019, noting that KP had seen a significant reduction in militant violence in recent years and that the security situation in Parachinar had improved. DFAT assesses that Turis face a similar risk of official discrimination as other Pashtuns based on ethnicity, and no additional risk of official discrimination based on their religion. DFAT also refer to unnamed media that reports that discrimination and violence towards Shia tribes, particularly Turis, remains significant in Kurram Agency due to state concerns regarding Iranian influence and greater presence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and that Turis face some risk of violence if travelling for pilgrimage on the road to Iran or Iraq. Overall, DFAT assesses that Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith.

...

1. Having had regard to all of the information before me, including the country information, I accept that Shias have been targeted and attacked in Kurram and Parachinar by anti-Shia elements in the past. I also acknowledge the opinion of various persons who the applicant's representative described as 'prominent members of the community' about the risks faced by Shias in Parachinar and the broader region, although I have some concerns as to the source of some of that information. Having considered the weight of independent reports before me about the attacks on members of the Turi tribe and/or Shias, the improved security situation, and the implementation of security measures in KP and across the country, I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of harm for the reasons claimed.

2. The country information does not indicate that Shias in [X] or Parachinar are unable to practise their religion or travel safely between the two areas. I also give weight to the applicant's evidence in the SHEV interview that his father continues to live in [X] without apparent difficulty. I also note the applicant's evidence that his family owns farm land and that his father has continued to work on the farm, and also buys and sells cars.

3. I note the arguments in the post-SHEV interview submissions about the cyclical nature of violence in Pakistan, which relates to the country as a whole. I further note the submissions about the repression of the media in respect of reporting sectarian violence in Pakistan and I accept not all incidents are reported. However, I have before me a range of country information (including that provided by the applicant through his representative) about the situation in his home area and the country more broadly. These reports are from within and outside Pakistan, including from DFAT, Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, European Asylum Support Office, South Asia Terrorism Portal and Centre for Research and Security Studies. The representative also presented arguments about global and internal factors that may lead to the applicant facing harm in Pakistan. This included factors such as the effect of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the conflict in Syria, and the growing influence of the Iranian and Saudi Arabian government in the region. Overall, I find these arguments speculative and, given the weight of country information before me, I am not persuaded these factors would lead the applicant to face a real chance of harm in his home area.

4. I acknowledge DFAT's assessment that the risk of sectarian violence for civilians in Parachinar (a one hour drive from the applicant's [home area]) is higher compared to other parts of the former FATA. I also acknowledge there has been a history of sectarian violence in Kurram Agency, including near the applicant's home area, and I cannot discount the possibility that further attacks may happen in the future. However, on the information before me, I find the chance that the applicant would be harmed by the Taliban or other extremist groups like LEJ, SSP and Islamic State now or in the foreseeable future due to his religion, his ethnicity, his tribal identity, his place of origin, as a Shia Turi, as a Shia Turi from [X], as a Shia Turi from Kurram Agency, or any combination of these profiles, to not rise to a real chance. I note DFAT's assessment that there exists a moderate level of militant and criminal violence in the wider province of KP; however, there is no indication in the country information that this is an issue affecting the applicant's home or surrounding area. I am not otherwise satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of harm on this basis. The applicant has not claimed to have experienced harm or discrimination on account of his Pashtun ethnicity previously and, on the information before me, I am not satisfied he faces a real chance of harm in his home area, where Pashtuns form a significant majority, for this reason. Nor am I satisfied that, in [X], the applicant will be imputed as a person opposed to the Taliban and other Sunni militants on account of his faith, his ethnicity, his tribal affiliation and/or his area of origin, or due to the role played by Shia tribes against the Taliban or any other group, or any combination of these factors, and be harmed on this basis. I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of harm in Pakistan due to an imputed 'anti-Taliban' and/or other anti-Sunni militant political opinion. There is no credible evidence before me to indicate that the Pakistani government is targeting, kidnapping or killing Shia Turis or other persons with a profile like the applicant, and I am not satisfied he faces a real chance of harm from the Pakistan government. Further, I am not satisfied that Shias or Turis are being targeted for harm in [X] (or Parachinar) on account of a perception that they are 'pro-Iran', 'pro-US', or pro-NATO.

(emphasis added)

1. The applicant argued that the Authority accepted DFAT's assessment that "Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith" but irrationally departed from that assessment in four ways.
2. However, the Minister argued that the Authority did not accept DFAT's assessment that, "Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith." The Minister argued that the Authority noted different and conflicting aspects of DFAT's assessments of the risk of sectarian violence in KP province. In particular, the Minister noted that DFAT assessed that:

(a) "the province [of KP] has a low level of sectarian violence"; and

(b) "Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith."

1. Importantly, the Authority noted that, "DFAT also assess that most Shias in Pakistan face a low risk of sectarian violence, but that the risk varies depending on geographical location and for members of specific groups."
2. Ultimately, the Authority made its own reconciliation of the somewhat conflicting assessments by DFAT and concluded at paragraph 62 of its reasons for decision that:

Having had regard to all of the information before me, including the country information, ... and [having] considered the weight of independent reports before me about the attacks on members of the Turi tribe and/or Shias, the improved security situation, and the implementation of security measures in KP and across the country, I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of harm for the reasons claimed.

1. It can be seen that the Authority did not accept the DFAT assessment that "Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith." Rather, the Authority evidently accepted other DFAT assessments to the effect that the risk of sectarian violence in Pakistan varied geographically and that the risk of sectarian violence in KP was low. The Authority also noted that there was no evidence of serious risk in the applicant's home area.
2. It follows that the premise of ground 4, that the Authority accepted that "Turis in all of Kurram Agency face a 'moderate risk' of sectarian violence from militant groups due to their Shia faith", was misplaced. The Authority did not accept that DFAT assessment. It also follows that ground 4 cannot succeed.

1. As neither of the applicant's grounds has been made out, the application will be dismissed. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Riley.