Afghan Recognised as Refugee Due to Persecution Risk

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 802917 [NAME], [NAME]

Appellant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 21 April 2026

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [1] This is an appeal against a decision of [RESPONDENT] and protection officer declining to grant [RESPONDENT] status or protected person status to the appellant, a citizen of [APPELLANT], aged 22 years. The Principal Issue on Appeal [2] The appellant claims to be at risk of serious harm due to his anti-[NAME], pro-Western views, as well as being the eldest son of a [NAME] worker for a [NAME] operating on the [NAME] [NAME] military base in [APPELLANT]. [3] The principal issue to be determined is whether the risk of the appellant suffering serious harm reaches the required threshold.

2 [4] For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant’s evidence is accepted and that he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in [APPELLANT]. He is recognised as [RESPONDENT]. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [5] The account which follows is a summary of the evidence given at the appeal hearing. It is assessed later. [6] The appellant was born in 2003, in Z city, Y province, [APPELLANT]. He is Sunni Muslim. [7] The appellant is the eldest son of eight children. His three younger brothers, two sisters and his parents remain living in [APPELLANT]. One sister lives in New Zealand, where she has been recognised as [RESPONDENT]. Another sister lives in Germany, where she obtained a partnership visa. [8] [NAME] worked for [COMPANY] from 2011 until 2014. [Withheld]. Because of this work, [NAME] has been threatened by [NAME]. When the [NAME] [NAME] left [APPELLANT], the contractor database kept by [COMPANY] was accessed by [NAME]. They identified [NAME] and started to threaten him by telephone and letters. [9] In 2021, [NAME] took over [APPELLANT] as its de facto governing authority. The appellant, who was around 18 years old at the time, remembers the fear he felt as fighting took place in his province. His father was particularly fearful because of his work for the [NAME]. His father relocated and lived in hiding in a number of different places over subsequent years. [10] Prior to [NAME] takeover, the appellant had been living freely. He was able to express himself as he wished, wear his hair and beard as he liked, play music if he wanted and was not fearful of being hurt or killed. His sister was attending school and planning to go to university. [NAME] were allowed to be in public, working or studying, without issue. However, everything changed after [NAME] gained control. No one could live freely. Everything became controlled by [NAME]. [11] In approximately September 2021, the appellant was visiting a [NAME] to have a haircut and beard trim. Three members of [NAME] entered the salon and started questioning the appellant on the [RESPONDENT] of his haircut and

3 beard. They apprehended the appellant and the hairdresser and walked them to a nearby prison-type building. They took his name, his father’s name and their address. The appellant was detained in a cell, alone. It was dark. His hands were tied, and he was placed in the corner. [NAME] members came in and beat the appellant with their guns on his stomach, back and legs. He was kept overnight and released the next morning, after he promised to grow his beard and not cut his hair in the style of the occupiers. Returning home, the appellant’s family were relieved to see him. They had been very scared as he was missing all night. [12] A few months later, the appellant was stopped by [NAME] while driving with his mother and sister. The appellant was again questioned as to his [RESPONDENT]. His mother and sister were both wearing burqa so were left alone. The appellant was ordered to get out of his car and enter their vehicle. He was asked to identify himself, with name, his father’s name and address. The appellant thought quickly and said he was unable to go with them, as that would mean leaving his mother and sister unaccompanied. As [NAME] being left alone without male escort was not deemed acceptable by [NAME] they agreed and let the appellant go with a warning about his [RESPONDENT]. [13] The appellant became very fearful about what would happen next. He had been identified by [NAME] on two occasions. His father had worked for the [NAME] previously and was now in hiding. Neighbours and others in the community knew that their family had supported the [NAME] [NAME], and were seen as infidels by [NAME]. The appellant, as the eldest son could be seen as next in line after his father. [14] After a period of a few months, the appellant was driving in a car procession for his friend’s brother’s wedding. His friend was in a different car, playing music to celebrate the wedding. He was stopped at a [NAME] checkpoint and warned to turn off the music. He did not do so. At the next checkpoint, with the music still playing loudly, the appellant’s friend was shot and killed by [NAME] for refusing to obey their orders. The appellant witnessed this from the car he was in. He was shocked and terrified. [15] The appellant and his family decided he should leave [APPELLANT] for his safety. He was chosen ahead of his other siblings as the eldest son.

4 [16] The appellant came to New Zealand at age 20. Initially he was happy, feeling free of [NAME] whom he fears greatly. He was once again able to exercise his free will. However, he has been feeling very stressed since that time. He fears for his future and the possibility of what could happen to him in [APPELLANT], and the safety of his family who remain there. He has difficulty sleeping, frequently having thoughts of events in [APPELLANT]. He has not sought medical care as he has no work here and does not believe he can afford medical care. [17] The appellant hates what [NAME] are doing to his people. He thinks that the [NAME] were a positive support for the people of [APPELLANT]. After their departure, life became unbearable. He sees [NAME] as “bad” and opposes the restrictions they impose. They claim they are doing so in the name of [NAME]. The appellant is a dedicated follower of [NAME], but does not think what [NAME] represent is in line with the true religion. Bodily restrictions like growing a long beard or not having a western style haircut have nothing to do with [NAME], but [NAME] have started punishing people if they do not follow such dictates. While the appellant holds these views strongly, in [APPELLANT] he would be too fearful of being killed, tortured or hurt in another way if he spoke what he actually believed about [NAME]. They have complete control of everyone there. Speaking out would be too dangerous. The appellant also does not post his views on social media for fear of consequences. He knows people have been detained and harmed for doing so. [18] If forced to return to [APPELLANT], the appellant would want to continue exercising his free will, including cutting his hair and beard and playing music. He intends on maintaining his western style hair and short beard. He sees styling his [RESPONDENT] as expressions of his personal and political beliefs in free will. [NAME] would see these as challenges to their power and regard him as an infidel. [19] When [NAME] provided a statement in support for this appeal, the appellant learnt for the first time that his father had been recently detained and tortured by [NAME] a few months ago. This was because of his profile as a [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] supporter and worker. He was only released after guarantees were given on his behalf, and he has returned to his practice of relocating and hiding.

5 [20] The appellant’s younger brothers have also been threatened by [NAME]. They previously had “western” or modern hairstyles but were ordered to adhere to the strict [NAME] dress codes. They have done so, out of fear of the consequences. [21] The family has been forced to evacuate the family home on a number of occasions due to attacks from Pakistan. They have done so independently, without any assistance by international organisations (which are not operating there) or [NAME]. Other Evidence and Submissions Received [22] The Tribunal and counsel have been provided copies of the appellant’s [RESPONDENT] (“RSU”) file. This contains among other relevant documents the following: (a) A letter (20 July 2024) from [COMPANY] confirming [NAME]’s employment for the W region of [COMPANY] in [APPELLANT], detailing his work responsibilities and confirming the “ongoing threats [he experiences] due to his employment with the [NAME] through [[COMPANY]]”. The letter also recommends [NAME] for approval of Afghans who assisted the [NAME] [NAME] in [APPELLANT] to relocate to the [NAME] [NAME]. On appeal, counsel provides opening written submissions (16 April 2025). (b) [NAME]’s identification card from [COMPANY]. (c) A letter, with English translation (17 February 2013) from the [NAME] [APPELLANT], Y Province to [NAME], stating that he has been assisting the occupiers ([NAME]) and warning him to stop or he “will pay for all your acts and your destiny will be like that of all other spies”. [23] On appeal, counsel provides opening written submissions (16 April 2026), together with the following: (a) The appellant’s updated statement (22 October 2025).

6 (b) Statement of [NAME] (undated), confirming the appellant’s evidence and his own recent detention and torture by [NAME]. (c) Statement of the [NAME] (undated), confirming the appellant’s evidence. (d) Statement of one of the appellant’s [APPELLANT]-based sisters (undated), confirming the appellant’s evidence. (e) A bundle of country information regarding [NAME] [NAME] violations in [APPELLANT]. (f) Article by [NAME] “[RESPONDENT] and the Limits of Memory” (2010) 22 International Journal of [RESPONDENT] 469. ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT’S CLAIM [24] Under section 198 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”), on an appeal concerning [RESPONDENT] or protection status under section 194(1)(c), the Tribunal must determine (in this order) whether to recognise the appellant as: (a) [RESPONDENT] under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the [RESPONDENT]” or “the Convention”) (section 129); and (b) a protected person under the 1984 [NAME] (section 130); and (c) a protected person under the 1966 International Covenant on [NAME] [NAME] (“the ICCPR”) (section 131). [25] There is a statutory obligation on the appellant, under section 226(1) of the Act, to establish their claim: It is the responsibility of an appellant or affected person to establish his or her case or claim, and the appellant or affected person must ensure that all information, evidence, and submissions that he or she wishes to have considered in support of the appeal or matter are provided to the Tribunal before it makes its decision on the appeal or matter.

7 [26] In determining whether the appellant is [RESPONDENT] or a protected person, it is necessary to identify the facts against which the assessment is to be made. Section 218(1) of the Act recognises that the Tribunal is a “specialist body” that has the role of deciding appeals and matters by: … making findings of fact, applying the relevant law and making a determination. [27] This requires the assessment of the evidence presented in support of the appellant’s case. As explained in [NAME] (Democratic Republic of Congo) [2025] NZIPT 802417, in line with New Zealand’s obligations under international law, the Act and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, the Tribunal makes an assessment of the evidence presented in support of the appellant’s case in order to make findings of fact, including through an assessment of credibility. In this assessment, only evidence to which no credence can be attached is discounted. The rest of the evidence is either accepted or afforded the benefit of the doubt, and given full weight. A risk assessment proceeds on the findings of fact. [NAME] (Democratic Republic of Congo), at [78]. Assessment of the Evidence [28] The evidence is accepted for the purposes of this appeal. [29] The Tribunal notes that the appellant’s parents and sisters (including his New Zealand-resident sister), were available to give oral evidence. However, it was agreed this was not necessary and the written statements were accepted as credible and given full weight. THE [RESPONDENT] [30] Section 129(1) of the Act provides that: A person must be recognised as [RESPONDENT] in accordance with this Act if he or she is [RESPONDENT] within the meaning of the [RESPONDENT]. [31] Article 1A(2) of the [RESPONDENT] provides that [RESPONDENT] is a person who: ... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his [NAME] habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

8 [32] In determining what is meant by “well-founded” in Article 1A(2) of the Convention, the Tribunal adopts the approach in [NAME] v [NAME] (1989) 169 CLR 379, where it was held that a fear of being persecuted is established as well-founded when there is a real, as opposed to a remote or speculative, chance of it occurring. The standard is entirely objective — see [RESPONDENT] No 76044 (11 September 2008), at [57]; and HX (China) [2023] NZIPT 802189 at [55]–[60]. [33] “Being persecuted” requires serious harm arising from the breach of internationally recognised [NAME] [NAME], demonstrative of a failure of state protection — see DS (Iran) [2016] NZIPT 800788, at [114]–[130] and [177]–[183]. [34] The principal issues are, as explained in [RESPONDENT] No 70074 (17 September 1996), affirmed by the Tribunal in DS (Iran) [2016] NZIPT 800788, at [213]: (a) Objectively, on the facts as found, is there a real chance of the appellant being persecuted in the country of nationality? (b) If the answer is yes, is there a Convention reason for that persecution? Objectively, on the Facts as Found, is There a Real Chance of the Appellant Being Persecuted in [APPELLANT]? [35] It is necessary to record relevant country information to provide context to the appellant’s case. Relevant country information – [NAME] [36] Recent country information confirms [NAME]’s repressive rule targets individuals seen as [NAME] and subjects them to arbitrary detention, torture and other forms of ill-treatment, in addition to incidences of unlawful killing. According to [NAME] in its annual report, “The State of the World’s [NAME] [NAME]” (April 2025) (“[NAME] 2025 report”) at pp71–72: Enforced Disappearances, Arbitrary Arrests and Detentions As of June [2025], 20,000 people, including 1,500 [NAME], were reportedly imprisoned under [NAME].

9 [NAME] continued using arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances and unlawful detention against people perceived as [NAME]. These included [NAME] employees, [NAME] who criticized [NAME]’s policies, [COMPANY] and [NAME] and many [NAME]. … Extrajudicial Executions, Torture and Other Ill-treatment [NAME], including members of the [NAME] and those critical of [NAME], remained at risk of torture and other ill-treatment and extrajudicial executions. [The [NAME] in [APPELLANT] ([APPELLANT])] recorded at least 98 cases of arbitrary arrest and detention of [NAME] employees between January and June, including 20 incidents involving torture and other ill-treatment and nine incidents of unlawful killings. [NAME]’s use of public corporal punishment, amounting to torture and other ill-treatment, continued across the country. [APPELLANT] reported punishments taking place in at least one province each week. From April to June, [APPELLANT] recorded 179 individuals (147 [NAME], 28 [NAME] and four boys) sentenced to corporal punishments. Accusations included “adultery” and “running away” – which disproportionately affected [NAME] and girls – and pederasty. [APPELLANT] also documented at least 1,033 instances of unlawful use of force (205 on [NAME] and girls and 828 on [NAME] and boys) by members of the [Ministry for the Propagation of [NAME]] between August 2021 and March 2024. [NAME] continued to carry out public executions of individuals who had been sentenced to death by their courts, despite serious concerns regarding compliance with fair trial [NAME]. [APPELLANT] reported that three [NAME] were publicly executed in February and one man in November. In July, reports further indicated that between 300 and 600 prisoners were sentenced to death by [NAME] courts. In March, media reported that [NAME] may resume “stoning to death” as punishment for “adultery”. [37] The [NAME] ([NAME]) issued an updated Guidance Note on [APPELLANT] II in September 2025 (“the [NAME]”). This identifies that persons (perceived as) opposing or criticising the [NAME] ([NAME]) are likely to be in need of international protection. [38] Furthermore, the [NAME] identifies Afghans associated with the [NAME], security forces or [NAME] are likely to be in need of international protection due to a risk of being persecuted:

24. Despite the [NAME] proclaiming a “general [NAME]” for those who supported the prior government or who fought against [NAME], including [NAME], the [NAME] to [APPELLANT] ([APPELLANT]) reported in 2023 that they had documented “at least 800 [NAME] [NAME] violations [committed by the [NAME]] against [NAME] and [Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF)] members between […] 15 August 2021 and 30 June 2023.” [NAME] and [NAME] members of the ANDSF have continued to be targeted, killed, arrested and detained and tortured in 2024 and into 2025. These include individuals associated with the [NAME] or security forces who had returned voluntarily or who had been

10 forcibly returned to [APPELLANT]. Reportedly, some [NAME] or members of the ANDSF continue to live in hiding. … 25. … Persons who worked with or were affiliated with foreign forces—including as interpreters, security guards and [NAME]—have also been targeted. Where persons associated with the [NAME], security forces or their [NAME] have been killed by unknown actors, the [NAME] have reportedly not investigated the crimes, arrested the perpetrators or initiated prosecution.

26. Given the information presented above, many persons of this profile—including [NAME], previous members of the ANDSF, [NAME] prosecutors or judges and persons who were affiliated with foreign forces—are likely to be in need of international protection. Other persons of this profile may be in need of international protection depending on the individual circumstances of the case. [39] [NAME] also identifies that “family members and others closely associated with persons at risk of persecution are frequently at risk themselves” ([NAME] at [17]). Ministry for the Propagation of [NAME] [40] In 2021, [NAME] established the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (“MPVPV”), with responsibility for legislating and enforcing strict interpretations of Islamic law. The MPVPV reportedly operates with a broad mandate, employing methods such as verbal intimidation, arrests, detentions, ill-treatment, and public lashings. Ambiguities and inconsistencies in its directives, combined with the arbitrariness, severity, and disproportionality of punishments and restrictive measures on individual behaviour in both public and private life, contribute to a climate of fear and intimidation across segments of the population ([NAME] in [APPELLANT] [NAME]’ Moral Oversight in [APPELLANT]: Impacts on [NAME] [NAME] (July 2024) (“the [APPELLANT] 2024 report”). [41] According to the [NAME] 2025 report (at p72): In [NAME] for the Propagation of [NAME] (MPVPV, also known as the morality inspectors or police) announced that they had detained 13,000 people over the past year for violating their morality rules. [NAME], an [NAME], was released in September after 11 months’ imprisonment, following arbitrary arrest and an unfair trial in which he was accused of organizing protests and “inciting [NAME] to protest”. [42] According to [NAME] in the World 2024: [APPELLANT] (24 September 2024) at https://freedomhouse.org/, individuals in [APPELLANT] have extremely limited, if any, control over their [RESPONDENT], as [NAME] mandates adherence to approved beard and hairstyle guidelines, prohibiting Westernised hairstyles and attire.

11 [43] Furthermore, the [APPELLANT] 2024 report (at p22) found that strict enforcement of rules on physical [RESPONDENT] and attire, such as regulations on the hijab, beard length, and hairstyle, infringes on freedom of expression and the right to privacy under the ICCPR. The report also stated (at pp11–12 and p17): [NAME] has issued a number of instructions regarding the appropriate [RESPONDENT] of [NAME]. The [NAME] instructed [NAME] not to trim the beards of [NAME] nor to cut their hair in “Western style” haircuts. In a recent instance, on 24 January 2024, in Herat province, the Head of the [NAME] stated in a video clip that [NAME] should not shave and trim the beard of clients shorter than the length of a fist and should not provide “Western hairstyle” to clients. While the [NAME] has stated that this guidance is advisory in nature, incidents of forceful enforcement have been recorded including arrests, detentions and ill-treatment of [NAME] who shaved their clients’ beards, as well as of [NAME] who have allegedly failed to comply with instructions on [RESPONDENT]. Some examples include: On 27 July 2023, in Badakhshan province, the [NAME] detained several individuals for a few hours on allegations of having shaved their beards. On 7 December 2023, in Nangarhar province, [NAME] closed 20 [NAME] for one night and detained two [NAME] for two nights on allegations of providing clean shave, trimmed beard, and “Western” style haircuts. They were released after providing a guarantee of not providing these services again. … The de facto DPVPVs have been involved in carrying out both judicial and ad hoc corporal punishment. The ad hoc corporal punishment carried out by the [NAME] is often against individuals accused of failing to observe edicts: … for [NAME], in relation to [NAME] who have provided non-compliant beard trimming or haircuts to [NAME], [NAME] who did not conform with the prescribed beard length or hair style. [44] According to “[NAME] on Hair, Beard Styling in [NAME]” [NAME] (22 April 2024) members of [NAME]’s MPVPV now inspect [NAME] up to twice a week, checking for violations such as unauthorised styles and the use of banned terms like “beard trimming” and “hair styling”. [45] In the beginning of 2026, the MPVPV stated that it is now obligatory for [NAME] to grow beards longer than a fist, strengthening earlier orders. Minister [NAME] stated it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that individuals maintain an [RESPONDENT] in accordance with sharia law (“[NAME] as [NAME] on Short Beards” [NAME] (19 February 2026)). According to the [NAME], [NAME] have been closely monitored, identified and arbitrarily detained by the MPVPV in relation to their [RESPONDENT] ([NAME] on the Implementation, Enforcement and Impact of the Propagation of [NAME] in [APPELLANT] (April 2025) at p3):

12 Enforcement of the PVPV law has also affected [NAME] facing stipulations on hairstyle and beard length, attendance at prayers and from other provisions of the law. [APPELLANT] observed that in the first six months of implementation of the PVPV law, over half of the PVPV law-related arbitrary detentions concerned [NAME]’s [RESPONDENT]—either [NAME] not having the compliant beard length or hairstyle, or [NAME] providing non- compliant beard trimming or haircuts. During the month of Ramadan (1 to 29 March 2025) compliance with attending mandated congregational prayers was closely monitored, leading at times to arbitrary detention of persons who failed to attend prayers. Monitoring and reporting [46] [NAME] monitoring and reporting has been significantly curtailed since [NAME] retook power in 2021. Recently, they announced that they would no longer allow the [NAME] on [APPELLANT] to enter the country ([NAME] 2025 report at p71). Media outlets are also being severely limited in their exercise of freedom of expression (at p72): [NAME] ([NAME]) ranked [APPELLANT] among the three worst countries for media freedom in 2024. In April, at least two local private TV stations ([NAME] and [NAME]) were suspended for criticizing [NAME]. In May, [NAME] raised concerns that [NAME] and analysts were prohibited from working for and collaborating with [APPELLANT], a popular TV news channel operating outside the country. [NAME] also reportedly introduced restrictions on live political talk shows, including limitations on who could participate in interviews and what they could say. In October 2024, media reported that [NAME] in Takhar province had banned filming and broadcasting “living things”, as it is against their vice and virtue law. In November 2024, [APPELLANT] reported the use of arbitrary arrest, torture and other ill- treatment, and threats and intimidation against 336 [NAME] and media workers between August 2021 and September 2024. Application to the facts [47] The appellant, the eldest son of a [NAME] [NAME] contractor who worked on a [NAME] [NAME] military base, opposes [NAME] due to their limitations on freedoms in the country. He has expressed his opposition through disobeying dictates on male [RESPONDENT] including hair and beard length. The appellant was detained and beaten on one occasion in 2021. He avoided further mistreatment later in 2021, impressing upon [NAME] who stopped his car that he needed to accompany his mother and sister. [48] In light of country information set out above, in particular regarding the treatment of perceived [NAME], [NAME] ally workers and their family members, the Tribunal is satisfied that the combination of the appellant’s own anti-[NAME] views, two previous warnings by [NAME] in which he was personally identified and one when he was detained and beaten, his intention to

13 challenge [NAME] dictates through maintaining his [RESPONDENT] in the future, and profile as the eldest son of a [COMPANY], mean he faces a real chance of being persecuted in [APPELLANT] by the [NAME], [NAME], through physical mistreatment (in violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR) or torture (in violation of Article 2 of the [NAME]) and arbitrary detention (in violation of Article 9 of the ICCPR). Further, any such treatment will also amount to impermissible limitations on, and therefore breaches of, the appellant’s right to freedom of expression (Article 19 of the ICCPR). Such breaches amount to serious harm. Conclusion on risk of being persecuted [49] For these reasons, objectively, on the facts as found, there is a real chance of the appellant suffering serious harm arising from breaches of [NAME] [NAME]. The appellant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted. Is there a Convention Reason for the Persecution? [50] In order to be recognised as [RESPONDENT], a claimant must establish not only a well-founded fear of being persecuted, but also that this predicament is linked to one of the five Convention grounds. This requires that the Convention ground be a contributing cause to the risk of being persecuted; see [RESPONDENT] No 72635 (6 September 2002) at [173]. [51] The relevant Convention reason is political opinion. Internal Protection Alternative [52] The question whether the appellant has a viable internal protection alternative requires consideration as to whether the appellant can access and enjoy meaningful domestic protection elsewhere in the home country: see [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) [2018] NZIPT 801220 at [50]; and [RESPONDENT] No 76044 (11 September 2008). [53] It is not necessary to deal with this in any detail in this case because the agent of persecution is the de facto government authority, [NAME]. It is expected to have the machinery and the will to access all parts of the country.

14 Exclusion [54] There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal which raises any issue under Article 1F of the [RESPONDENT]. Conclusion on Claim to [RESPONDENT] [55] For the foregoing reasons, the appellant is recognised as [RESPONDENT]. Protected Person Status Under the [NAME] and the ICCPR [56] By virtue of section 164 of the Act (the exceptions to which do not apply), the appellant cannot be deported from New Zealand because he is recognised as [RESPONDENT]. This accords with New Zealand’s non-refoulement obligation under Article 33 of the [RESPONDENT].

Accordingly, there are no substantial grounds for believing that the appellant would be in danger of being subjected to torture, arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel treatment if deported from New Zealand (sections 130(1) and 131(1) and (6) of the Act). [57] The appellant does not require protection under the [NAME] or the ICCPR. He is not a protected person within the meaning of sections 130(1) or 131(1) of the Act.

CONCLUSION [58] For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that the appellant: [redacted] is [RESPONDENT] within the meaning of the [RESPONDENT] and, therefore, is [RESPONDENT] under section 129 of the Act; (b) is not a protected person within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the [NAME] and, therefore, is not a protected person under section 130 of the Act; (c) is not a protected person within the meaning of the relevant elements of Articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR and, therefore, is not a protected person under section 131 of the Act. [59] The appeal is allowed.

15 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member Order as to Depersonalised and Abridged Research Copy [60] The disclosure of parts of this decision beyond the parties (and those to whom disclosure is permitted by section 151(2)) would tend to identify the appellant and/or be likely to endanger the safety of the appellant or others. [61] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal orders that, until further order, the indicated parts of the decision are to be redacted by removal of names and particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant from the research copy of this decision. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member