SZKUL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 791

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZKUL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 791

SZKUL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 2462 of 2007

COWDROY J

29 MAY 2008

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2462 of 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKUL

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J

DATE OF ORDER: 29 MAY 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent. 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 NSD 2462 of 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZKUL

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: COWDROY J

DATE: 29 MAY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from the decision of Federal Magistrate Cameron delivered on 5 December 2007 which dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 12 June 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('the Minister') not to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa ('the protection visa').

BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan who arrived in Australia on 24 November 2006. On 28 December 2006 the appellant lodged an application for the protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the Minister refused the appellant's application on 23 March 2007. On 11 April 2007 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The appellant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution resulting from his political opinion. The appellant claimed to have been a member of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Sharif group) ('the PML(N)') from 1987 to 2000. The appellant claimed that in 1996 he had been appointed President of the Youth Wing of the PML(N) in Sialkot. 4 The appellant claimed that in or about 1998 the army staged a military coup and seized power from Nawaz Sharif. The appellant claimed that he and other members of the PML(N) protested against the military coup but were arrested by the police. He claimed that he was detained for five days, during which time he was 'badly beaten' by the police 'because I was the leader'. The appellant claimed that the police said that they had 'orders from the top to arrest and torture me'. The appellant claimed that his cousin brokered a deal with the police to secure his release. The appellant claimed that on his release he was unable to walk properly for five weeks. He also claimed that the police told his cousin that if the appellant was seen in Sialkot again he would be killed. 5 The appellant claimed that after his release he left Sialkot and moved to Lahore. He claimed that he visited the PML(N) headquarters and met with 'significant Muslim League personalities'. He claimed to have visited Nawaz Sharif and 'other leaders' in gaol. 6 The appellant claimed that while he was working in an election campaign for a candidate he became involved in a fight with an 'opposition group' that was supported by the Pakistan People's Party. The appellant claimed that he was arrested and beaten by the police after such altercation. He claimed that he was released only after his candidate won the election. 7 The appellant claimed that in or about 1999 he left Lahore and returned to Sialkot 'because I was not feeling safe there any longer'. The appellant claimed that he was involved in an election campaign in Sialkot. He claimed that on the day of the election the opposing parties fired gun shots at each other. The appellant claimed that he was shot in his left arm. He claimed that the police charged both groups under 'Antiterrorist Act'. The appellant claimed that he had been nominated by the opposing party as the person who had fired shots that killed a member of that opposing party. 8 The appellant claimed that he was 'the target of the opposition'. He claimed that if he were to return to Pakistan 'they will kill me or Police will investigate my roll [sic] in the firing and may constitute case against me which will result imprisonment'. He also claimed that his parents had been receiving phone calls threatening to kill the appellant if he returned to Pakistan.