Case: SZIFI v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs &amp; Anor [2006] FMCA 1263
Outcome: cited
In this appeal, the Appellant contends that Federal Magistrate Barnes erred in dismissing ( SZIFI v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs &amp; Anor [2006] FMCA 1263) on 21 August 2006 an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') delivered on 10 January 2006 affirming a decision of the Minister's Delegate refusing the Appellant's application for a protection visa. 2 The grounds of appeal recited in the notice of appeal filed on 31 August 2006 are these: 'GROUNDS That the Learned Federal Magistrate Barnes did not went in to the question of law and facts. The respondents are showing the appellant as a citizen of Indonesia whereas the appellant hails from different country. The respondents also erred in to question of law as to the persecution and well founded fear of life. This has led to the grave miscarriage of justice. ORDERS SOUGHT The judgment and the order made by the Federal Magistrate Court may kindly be set aside. The applicant be allowed to remain in Australia til the decision of the review before this Honourable Court'. 3 The background facts are these. 4 The Appellant is a married Punjabi man born on 7 July 1977 in Sialkot, Pakistan. He is therefore a national of the State of Pakistan. 5 The Appellant arrived in Australia on 10 September 2005. On 29 September 2005 the Appellant lodged an Application for a Protection (Class XA) Visa with the First Respondent. On 18 October 2005, a Delegate of the First Respondent refused the Appellant's application. On 16 November 2005, the Appellant sought review of that decision before the Tribunal. The Appellant contends that he holds a well-founded fear of persecution for the political opinions he holds and articulates concerning the need for a restoration of democracy in the State of Pakistan and that he is unwilling to return to Pakistan owing to such fear. Accordingly, the Appellant contends that Australia has protection obligations under the Refugee's Convention as amended by the Refugee's Protocol ( 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ) for the purposes of s 65(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). 6 The Appellant's contentions in support of the application for a protection visa are these. (a) The Appellant is a Sunni Muslim. The Appellant has had the benefit of seven years of education; speaks, reads and writes the Urdu and English languages; was a self-employed salesman from 1995 to 2005; has a wife, son and daughter resident in Pakistan; and elected to leave Pakistan lawfully without any difficulty in obtaining travel documentation. (b) The Appellant was a member of the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Group ('the M L N G'). In documentation lodged in support of the application for a protection visa, the Appellant said that the M L N G was able to secure the maximum seats from the district of Sialkot in both the upper house and the lower house in elections prior to the civil governance of Pakistan by the military. The Appellant contends that he 'suffered' due to developing tension between the M L N G and the Pakistan People's Party. (c) After the assumption of power by the military, leaders of the M L N G in Sialkot formed a movement for the restoration of democracy. The Appellant was a 'front line worker' for the M L N G; participated in processions; and distributed flyers and other literature critical of corruption on the part of military generals. (d) The Appellant contends that the army 'blackmailed' some of the leaders of the M L N G to join the governing regime. The Appellant says he knows some of these persons as the Appellant was the most senior party worker in the M L N G in Sialkot. As a result, the Appellant was persecuted by the leaders of the military governance group and by the military secret service. (e) The Appellant says that he was taken to a police station and assaulted by the police at the instigation of military authorities. The Appellant was told by the authorities that he should not demonstrate against the military governance group and if he did not comply with these demands, false charges would be brought against him as a result of which he would be declared a terrorist and then executed. (f) The Appellant contends that he is an activist struggling for the development of a democratic movement in Pakistan; that he was able to obtain a visa through an agent in order to leave Pakistan; and that if he returns to Pakistan he will ultimately be executed because of the opinions he holds and his prior pro-democracy activity. 7 Notwithstanding these contentions, the Minister's Delegate rejected the Appellant's application for a protection visa.