CNF23 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1942

1. The applicant is a citizen of the Republic of Pakistan who applied for a Protection Visa pursuant to the provisions of s. 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on 12 March 2018.
2. On 22 May 2020, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the relevant refugee criteria.
3. On 24 May 2020, the applicant applied to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of the delegate's decision.
4. On 18 October 2023, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.
5. In its reasons dated 18 October 2023, the Tribunal at [18] - [25] set out the applicant's relevant past life history from the time that the applicant finished his education in Pakistan in 2005 until 24 May 2020, that being the date when the applicant sought review by the Tribunal of the delegate's decision.
6. At [26] - [59] of its reasons, the Tribunal set out in detail the claims of the applicant whereby it was asserted that the applicant's wife's family would carry out an "Honour Killing" because the applicant had allegedly married his wife against his wife's family's wishes. At [29] - [39] of its reasons, the Tribunal made relevant findings as follows:
   1. The Tribunal had the opportunity to assess his wife's statement where she addressed that incident, as well as the copy of a single page court document which the applicant had earlier provided to the Department. The date of 8 December 2010 is inserted at the top of the page of that court document. The statement from the applicant's wife was provided to the Tribunal on 5 October 2023.
   2. What stands out in both of those documents is the distinct lack of any reference to any threat of harm or violence being made about or directed towards the applicant. More particularly, the focus of her family members in that incident was clearly not the applicant, but rather his wife who had only within the past few days fled her family home and married the applicant.
   3. When assessing the information provided by the applicant's wife about that incident, the court document provides:

The respondent Akhtar Nawaz, Wasif Akhtar and Arshad Nawaz alongwith (sic) other persons forcibly trespassed into house and started abusing. The respondent Wasif Akhtar pointed a pistol at me and started beating me. They attempted to took me alongwith (sic) the forcibly. I raised hue & cry, thereon [names of others] attracted to the place of occurrence and rescued me. The respondents on having had sighted [inserted into here were the words (in hand writing) - "said witnesses'] fled away by extended threats. The incident was reported to Police but no action was taken. Hence this complaint.

1. Within the statement purportedly provided by the applicant's wife, she described this incident and said:

Asad went to meet up with his mother and I was alone in the flat when Arshad Nawaz and Wasif Akhtar came to our place. It was a terrifying situation. They forcefully entered in the apartment and tried to abduct me. I was shouting for help and a lot of people gathered and stopped them from abducting me. I immediately called Asad and he came back with his friends and we went to his mother's house.

1. What is distinguishable between those two versions is that although they appear to relate to, and claim that the applicant's family members tried to abduct her away from the house. in the first version she claimed that a person she identified as Wasif Akhtar pointed a pistol at her and then started 'beating' her. None of this was identified within her later statement made 13 years after the incident took place.
2. Returning to the applicant's claims, he said that after this incident, he and his wife left Lahore to avoid further harm. They stayed with the applicant's sister and her husband in Okara for two months and then moved to Islamabad and stayed with his father from February 2011 to March 2012.
3. The applicant also claims that in approximately 2011 , his mother was forced to sell their family house in Lahore and move in order to distance herself from his wife's family who lived close by. Although she moved, she remained living in Lahore. The Tribunal observes that he did not rely upon his mother to provide evidence to support his claims, and in reaching a conclusion in this matter, the Tribunal places no weight upon his claims in respect to the alleged sale of his mother's house in determining whether he is a person whom Australia had protection obligations.
4. The applicant went on to claim that he and his wife returned to Lahore in March 2012 after members of his wife's family saw him in his workplace in Islamabad. At the time of his departure from Pakistan in July 2012, his wife and their daughter were living with the applicant's mother in Lahore.
5. The Tribunal notes that although he claims that members of his wife's family saw him at his work place in Islamabad, he does not claim that he was approached by those family members; or that he was threatened by them; or that he was in anyway intimidated or assaulted by them.
6. Apart from that single incident in Islamabad, he does not claim that there was any other occasion within the 13 months that he and his wife lived in Islamabad where he saw members of his wife's family; or that there was any type of interaction between him and any member of his wife's family.
7. Notwithstanding those features just identified, and despite his claim that members of his wife's family saw him at his workplace, the Tribunal particularly notes that he and his wife relocated back to Lahore, which is the very same locality where her family lived.

1. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence before it justified a finding that there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm if the applicant was returned to Pakistan, or that there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned there.
2. On 21 November 2023, the applicant filed an Originating Application for Review of the decision of the Tribunal.
3. At the hearing before the Court, the applicant relied upon an Amended Application for Review filed on 11 June 2025.

1. The Grounds of Review in the Amended Application for Review were as follows:
   1. The AAT ignored the claims and relevant evidence.
   2. The decision was unfair because the AAT relied on irrelevant facts.
   3. The AAT failed to consider the Country information and statements/submissions.
   4. The AAT failed to consider the societal practices in Pakistani Culture in relation to Honour Killings.
   5. The AAT denied procedural fairness at the hearing. My brother was supposed to provide evidence in my case but the AA T member did not let him give evidence instead the AA T withdrawn my witness without my consent.
2. Grounds 1 - 3 inclusive were unparticularised and unable to be the subject of proper consideration. The Court was not required to deal with such grounds. In circumstances where the Court is unable to act as an advocate on behalf of the applicant for public policy reasons, and further where the Court should not be called upon to anticipate possible grounds of review in vacuo, the grounds of review are without merit and incapable of demonstrating jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. [1] It has been held that unparticularised grounds of review is a ground for dismissal of such grounds. Grounds 1 - 3 are accordingly dismissed.
3. Ground 4 was a claim that the Tribunal failed to consider practices in Pakistan relating to "Honour Killings". There is no merit to such claim.
4. On the question of honour killings, at [61] - [66] of its reasons, the Tribunal found as follows:
   1. In explaining why he left Pakistan, the applicant claimed in his statement that a couple of months leading up to when he married his wife on 6 December 2010, he had received threats of being killed.
   2. He went on to explain that since he has lived overseas in Australia, he has been trying to equip himself academically and with skills to improve his chances of employment.
   3. The applicant claimed that he had experienced harm in Pakistan and went on to describe that he, along with his wife and their daughter are being targeted by his wife's family because of their inter-caste marriage that is unacceptable to his wife's family, yet that is not entirely consistent with the court documents he provided or his wife's evidence. No reference is ever made within the applicant's materials about a threat to his daughter.
   4. He also claimed that he has been mentally harassed, stalked and was on the verge of being killed for an honour killing by his wife's family. The Tribunal completely rejects this assertion and claim as the evidence does not support that he was stalked, with the closest that this could relate to anything the applicant claims was a one-off event when members of his wife's family went to where he worked in Islamabad, yet he did not claim that there was any interaction between them.
   5. The claims that he was on the verge of being killed for an honour killing by his wife's family are rejected by the Tribunal because this is not supported by the evidence. At best, the evidence in this matter is that since he married his wife, there have only been two occasions in the 13 years they have been married where members of her family have come to where she was living. The first was in 2010, and the second in 2018, and there is no evidence that any incident has taken place in the past five years or any concerns since she took out a Restraining Order against her uncle and brother.
   6. Further to those incidents, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the applicant has been threatened at any time, let alone during the 2010 incident or the 2018 incident. The only reference of a threat to him comes from within his wife's statement made in September 2023 where she alleges that her uncle said to her that he would take revenge against the applicant and her. That comment is completely inconsistent to the contents of the document she filed in a Pakistan court in 2018 where she makes no reference to any threat or revenge towards the applicant. The Tribunal rejects the hypothesis that any threat of harm was directed at the applicant.
5. At [68] - [115] of its reasons, the Tribunal carefully analysed the evidence before it and made findings that there had not relevantly been any threats made against the applicant by members of his wife's family in an honour killing context.
6. Though the Tribunal mistakenly recorded the dates of statements made by the applicant's wife at [104] of its reasons, the reasoning of the Tribunal concerning inconsistencies between the applicant's wife's statements at [104] - [109] was clear. The Tribunal found as follows:
   1. The inconsistencies between her 2019 statement and her 2015 statements are stark. She knew that by this time, her husband had already lodged an application in Australia for a protection visa and he was claiming that he feared being an 'honour killing' because he was married to her, yet her application and statement is silent about the applicant. When carefully assessing the contrast in the statements as identified, the Tribunal does not accept that any threats to harm the applicant were made by her uncle.
   2. In furtherance to that, when She gave her testimony at the review hearing, she told the Tribunal that when her uncle came to the house in May 2018, he was armed with a firearm and threatened to kill her. Yet, when carefully examining her 2015 application and statement to court in Pakistan for a Restraining Order, she makes no reference at all to her uncle or any other person being armed, or any reference to a threat that she will be killed.
   3. The Tribunal does not accept that there was any threat made towards the applicant on this occasion, and her evidence in her statement is not consistent with what she deposed in a court document soon after the event took place. The Tribunal is inclined to place greater weight on what was said within days of the event taking place as opposed to a statement made five years later.
   4. The Tribunal is of the view (and so finds) that her evidence is punctuated with inconsistencies and the fluctuations in the facts were her attempts to bolster the applicant's claims for a protection visa. The Tribunal finds that she was not a credible or a reliable witness and rejects her evidence in regard to the claims that the applicant was threatened with an honour killing because he married her.
   5. A further point the Tribunal makes about the claims that her uncle poses a threat to the applicant and his wife is that it appears from the Pakistani court documents provided by the applicant that his wife was successful in obtaining a Restraining Order to prevent her uncle from harassing her. The Tribunal. particularly notes that since that time, there is no suggestion by the applicant or his wife that her uncle or any other member of the family have engaged in any way with him or his wife, or his family.
   6. As already identified in these Reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that there was any threat made towards the applicant on this occasion, and the applicant's wife's evidence in her statement is not consistent with what she deposed in a court document soon after the event took place. The Tribunal is inclined to place greater weight on what was said within days of the event taking pace as opposed to a statement made five years later.
7. Further, under the heading "COUNTRY INFORMATION", the Tribunal specifically referred to DFAT country information which dealt with the question of honour killings at some length.
8. It was noted by the Tribunal that there was almost a six year delay between the applicant's date of arrival in Australia in July 2012 and the date of his lodgement of the protection visa application in March 2018. That was a relevant matter for consideration by the Tribunal in the context of all the other information before it. It could not be said that the Tribunal had failed to appropriately intellectually engage with the applicant's claim.
9. Ground 4 is accordingly dismissed.
10. Ground 5 was a claim that the applicant was denied procedural fairness at the hearing because the applicant's brother was not allowed to give evidence on the applicant's behalf and that such refusal constituted jurisdictional error. There is no merit to such claim.
11. The Court accepts the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent that the Tribunal was entitled to proceed to hear and determine the review application without the applicant's brother being called to give evidence on his behalf. The Tribunal had a statement from the applicant's brother before it. It was entitled to find that there was no utility in allowing the applicant to call the applicant's brother to give evidence on the applicant's behalf. First, the brother's statement did not record any threats being made against the applicant. Second, the brother's evidence was consistent with the version provided by the applicant's wife who had already given evidence before the Tribunal. At transcript p. 59 LL .11 - .35 [2], the applicant accepted that his brother could only give hearsay evidence because he was not relevantly present at any significant time.
12. In circumstances where the applicant had conceded that his brother could not give direct evidence about any matter in issue, the Tribunal was entitled to consider whether calling the applicant's brother was of any utility. [3] The Tribunal was further entitled to refuse the applicant's request to call his brother as a witness in such circumstances. It has been held as follows: [4]

"The Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in the conduct of its review. The Tribunal is empowered to obtain oral evidence in this situation (see ss. 424(1), 427(1), 429A) "but is not required" to do so (see s. 426(3)). Moreover, in SAAP, Hayne J, having considered the statutory review scheme, observed that the review process undertaken by the Tribunal is a "predominantly documentary process" (at [192]). "

1. In the circumstances, the Tribunal did not err in refusing to allow the applicant's brother to be called to give oral evidence at the hearing.
2. Further, the Tribunal conducted the hearing in a way which it considered most appropriate. It did not err in a procedural fairness context by having the applicant give evidence at the hearing before the applicant's wife gave evidence. The applicant and his wife gave that evidence which they considered relevant unimpeded by the Tribunal.
3. As to the applicant's submissions concerning the date errors at [104] of the reasons of the Tribunal, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that such date errors indicated that the Tribunal had failed to intellectually engage in a proper consideration of the applicant's claims. The point that the Tribunal was endeavouring to convey at [104] of its reasons was that there were inconsistencies between the applicant's wife's two statements, and that such inconsistencies were stark. For example, the Tribunal held that the wife's application for a restraining order and her accompanying statement was silent about the applicant, or any action taken by or against the applicant.
4. The applicant was given ample opportunity to put his case at the time of the hearing before the Court.
5. The applicant had been granted indulgences on a number of occasions prior to the final Court hearing date, the result being that the hearing was adjourned on a number of occasions. There was no procedural unfairness at the time of the hearing before the Court.
6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
7. The grounds of review are without merit and are dismissed.
8. The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

[1] DEZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 240 at [37] per Flick J: Hamod v

New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 at [309] - [316] per Beazley JA: SZRKG v Minister for

Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1389 at [22] per Farrel J: WZAVW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35] per Gilmore J; BUP24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 785 at [9] - [19].

[2] See Affidavit of Leith Helsdon filed on 21 May 2025

[3] AOO16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA

[4] VJAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 178 at [23]