MZZYK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

1. The application for extension of time filed on 11 January 2016 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Introduction 1 On 18 December 2012, the applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, made an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa. The applicant is a Pashto Sunni Muslim who was born in Darsamand, Hangu. Hangu is in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in the north-west of Pakistan. The applicant claimed that he feared prosecution from the Taliban because of his family's refusal of a marriage proposal for his sister from a family associated with the Taliban and because of his father's political opinions. 2 On 27 February 2013, a delegate of the first respondent (the Minister) refused the application for a protection visa. 3 The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of the delegate's decision. On 29 November 2013, the Tribunal decided to affirm the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. In relation to the Tribunal's decision, I note the following: (a) Although it held some concern about inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal accepted most of his claims. In particular, the Tribunal accepted that there had been a marriage proposal to the applicant's sister, that it had been refused, and that the Taliban had threatened the family as a result. The Tribunal also accepted the applicant's claims about being stopped and assaulted by Taliban members. (b) The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant's father had spoken against the Taliban and had been threatened; however, it noted that the father had not preached since March 2010 and did not accept that there had been adverse consequences for the family since. (c) The Tribunal accepted that, if the applicant were to return to his home district of Hangu, he would be at risk of serious harm from the Taliban. It also accepted that governmental authorities would not be able to protect the applicant there if he returned. (d) However, the Tribunal found that the applicant could relocate elsewhere within Pakistan, that neither the applicant, nor any member of his family, was known outside Hangu or the Peshawar area, and that the Taliban would not track him down elsewhere in Pakistan. The Tribunal also considered that there was no real chance, based on ethnicity, his family's wealth, or his time in Australia, that the applicant would be kidnapped or otherwise suffer harm. This finding was based on the applicant's education, work experience, family wealth and evidence of adapting to life in Australia. The Tribunal considered that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another large city in Pakistan and that he would be safe in such a city. (e) The Tribunal directly addressed the complementary protection provisions and concluded that the applicant would not suffer significant harm for any reason, including generalised violence, abduction or kidnapping, outside his home province. 4 On 24 December 2013, the applicant applied to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. 5 On 30 June 2014, the hearing before the Federal Circuit Court took place. The applicant appeared in person, without legal representation. 6 The judge dismissed the application and gave ex tempore reasons for the decision. Orders dismissing the application with costs were made orally in Court and entered that day, that is, 30 June 2014. However, a written form of the reasons for judgment was not published until 20 January 2016, 18 months later. 7 On 11 January 2016, the applicant filed an application for an extension of time in which to appeal to this Court from the judgment and orders of the Federal Circuit Court. 8 The application for an extension of time is supported by an affidavit of the applicant which sets out, in Annexure A, the grounds of the application for extension of time. A draft notice of appeal was also attached. The applicant is not represented by a lawyer and it appears that the annexure and draft notice of appeal were prepared without legal assistance. 9 The draft notice of appeal sets out one ground of appeal, namely "to review [decision] of Refugee Review Tribunal". 10 In addition to these documents, the applicant provided: an outline of argument; a copy of his application to the Minister for intervention; an email with additional points regarding the delay; and a character reference.