MZZYV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

1. The application for extension of time lodged electronically on 5 May 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 The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan who is a Sunni Muslim of Pashtun ethnicity, arrived in Australia in 2012 on a student visa. On 13 February 2013, he applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. In summary, he claimed to fear harm from the Taliban because of his religion, ethnicity and because of his membership and active involvement with the Awami National Party (ANP). He also claimed to have been targeted by the Taliban because of his employment with the Dir Rural Development Organisation (DRDO), a project linked to the World Food Program. 2 On 5 August 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. A hearing before the Tribunal took place on 24 October 2013 at which the applicant was represented by a migration agent and gave evidence. Subsequently, the applicant provided the Tribunal with some letters relating to mental health issues. On 12 December 2013, the Tribunal decided to affirm the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 4 In relation to the Tribunal's decision, I note the following: (a) The Tribunal made a number of adverse credibility findings against the applicant. In particular, the Tribunal pointed to significant inconsistencies in his evidence throughout the visa application process; and significant inconsistencies between his evidence and independent country information. The Tribunal also considered key aspects of the applicant's evidence to be vague and implausible. (b) The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claim that he was involved in or became a member of the ANP. This was based in part on an inconsistency between the applicant's account that he became involved with the student group of the ANP, namely the Azad Pukhtoon Student Federation (APkSF) in late 2006 and independent country information indicating that the group was not formed until February 2009. (c) The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claim that he was involved with the ANP in preparations for the elections to be held in 2008. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the date the applicant said the elections were held and independent country information indicating that they were held some five months later. (d) The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claim that people passed on the applicant's information to groups like the Taliban and Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi or that the applicant's father started receiving threats relating to the applicant's political activities. Nor did it accept his claim that he was threatened many times because of his political affiliations. (e) The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant worked at DRDO based on a number of discrepancies in the applicant's evidence. It placed little weight on a letter the applicant submitted purportedly from the managing director of DRDO. (f) The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution at the time of the Tribunal decision or in the reasonably foreseeable future for reason of an imputed political opinion or his membership of a particular social group or any other Convention reason based on his alleged employment with the DRDO. (g) The Tribunal concluded that it did not accept the applicant's claims that he would be targeted by the Taliban, other Sunni extremist groups, Sunni extremist sympathisers and other political groups because of his alleged membership of and active participation in the ANP, his alleged activities in the 2007/2008 election campaign, his employment with the DRDO and involvement in projects advocating for women's rights and education. (h) The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had a subjective fear of harm arising out of his liberal Muslim beliefs or his Pashtun ethnicity. (i) The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in the context of the complementary protection regime. It concluded that he did not meet the criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 5 The applicant applied to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. 6 On 30 September 2014, the hearing before the Federal Circuit Court took place. The applicant appeared in person, without legal representation. 7 On 10 October 2014, the judge delivered reasons and made orders that the applicant's application be dismissed and the applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $4,300. 8 On 5 May 2016, the applicant filed an application for an extension of time in which to appeal the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. 9 The application for an extension of time is supported by a brief affidavit of the applicant in which he relevantly states: 2. I had no legal representation in federal circuit court 3. I was not aware of the legal time frame to file and appeal to federal court and i applied for ministerial intervention. (Errors in original.) 10 A draft notice of appeal has been provided. This states that the grounds of appeal are as follows: 1. There was no legal representation at Federal Circuit court. 2. There is a Legal error in RRT Decision and Federal Circuit court decision 3. More Grounds of the appeal will be be provided once i have legal representation (Errors in original.) 11 The applicant is not represented by a lawyer and it appears that the affidavit and draft notice of appeal were prepared without legal assistance. No further proposed grounds of appeal have been provided. 12 In addition to these documents, the applicant provided a document headed "Applicant's Contentions of Fact and Law" attaching a number of letters and other documents. I will refer to this document as the applicant's written submissions.