FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Applicant S336 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1612 APPLICANT S336 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS N997 OF 2003 EMMETT J 4 DECEMBER 2003 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N997 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT S336 OF 2003 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT J F GODFREY MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE OF ORDER: 4 DECEMBER 2003 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the application be dismissed; 2. the applicant pay the first respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N997 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT S336 OF 2003 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT J F GODFREY MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE: 4 DECEMBER 2003 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He arrived in Australia on 11 April 1990. On 3 August 1994, he lodged an application for refugee status and related entry permits under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). As from 1 September 1998, those applications were deemed to be an application for a protection visa. On 9 January 1996, a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), refused to grant a protection visa and, on 18 January 1996, the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). On 17 October 1997, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. 2 The applicant subsequently became a party to a purported class action brought in the High Court of Australia. At that stage, the so-called class was represented by legal practitioners. On 19 June 2003, the applicant filed his own application to the High Court. That matter was remitted to this Court. 3 On 27 October 2003, I ordered that the applicant file and serve, on or before 24 November 2003, a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law and any affidavits upon which the applicant intended to rely at the hearing. On 25 November 2003, in purported compliance with that direction, the applicant filed an affidavit which simply makes assertions as to why he should be granted a protection visa. No ground is referred to in the affidavit upon which the decision of the Tribunal could be reviewed by the Court. 4 The Minister, in the circumstances, asks for an order that the application be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 7(2) of the Federal Court Rules on the basis of the failure to comply with the direction that I made on 27 October 2003. The applicant, in turn, says that he needs more time to consult a barrister and to get more papers. I consider, having regard to the time when the Tribunal's decision under review was made, that the applicant has had ample opportunity to obtain legal advice in relation to the matter. 5 I have read the reasons of the Tribunal for affirming the delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant's claim was founded on his alleged belief that he would face persecution if he returned to Pakistan because of his religion. He detailed a number of occasions where he or his community have suffered some form of discrimination, albeit 'minor', as the Tribunal characterised it. 6 The Tribunal accepted the applicant's claim of discrimination as consistent with independent reports of the situation of Christians in Pakistan. It also accepted that the Pakistani government has legislated to protect religious minorities, including Christians, and that the Pakistani government has acted promptly in dealing with the use of the blasphemy laws against individuals and a serious outbreak of sectarian violence aimed at Christians. The Tribunal found that, despite discrimination against Christians, the applicant had been able to complete a high school education and undertake a Diploma of Commerce and that he was in full time employment until his departure, on a visitor visa, for Australia. 7 The Tribunal also considered that there was no economic discrimination against Christians per se in Pakistan. The Tribunal considered the applicant had successfully overcome possible discrimination in the two main areas in which it is practised and that the applicant had achieved a higher level of education than most of his fellow countrymen. The Tribunal therefore found that, while there may be evidence of some discrimination against Christians, the applicant had not been subjected to personal discrimination in any meaningful way. 8 There is nothing on the face of the reasons to indicate any error on the part of the Tribunal and, in the absence of any basis having been advanced by the applicant to indicate some jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal, the application, as it presently stands, is doomed to failure. 9 Having regard to the failure to comply satisfactorily with the directions that I gave on 27 October 2003, I propose to accede to the Minister's application. Accordingly, I propose to order that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the Minister's costs. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate: Dated: 22 January 2004 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 4 December 2003 Date of Judgment: 4 December 2003