AZABR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] FCA 448

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AZABR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 448

Citation:		AZABR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 448
Appeal from:		AZABR v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 825
Parties:		AZABR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number:		SAD 316 of 2011
Judge:		MANSFIELD J
Date of judgment:		4 May 2012
Date of hearing:	4 April 2012
Date of last submissions:	4 April 2012
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
Counsel for the Appellant:	P Charman
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Hamdan Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents:	K Tredrea
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 316 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

AZABR
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2012
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay to the first respondent costs of the appeal.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 316 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

AZABR
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	4 MAY 2012
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This appeal was heard at the same time as two other appeals in which the same contention was raised: see AZABQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 446; AZABP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 447

2. This appellant and the appellant in AZABQ and AZABR are young men from Haripur in the north-east of Pakistan, and who arrived in Australia on a student visa.  Whilst in Australia, each on 21 June 2010 applied for a protection visa.

3. Their claims to be refugees were very similar.  Each is a Sunni Muslim who fears harm from the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) for breaking Islamic law by learning and living in a Western Culture.

4. The background to each appeal was, in all relevant respects, the same.  In this instance, the Refugee Review Tribunal by decision of 31 March 2011 found that the Appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, namely his Sunni Muslim religion or an imputed political opinion that he was westernised or “anti-Muslim”, should he return to his home in Haripur in Pakistan or in the region of Haripur.  His claim to a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) failed, however, because the Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonable for him to relocate elsewhere within Pakistan.

5. In this matter, the Tribunal took into account a number of matters personal to the appellant: his age; his capacity to find employment in Pakistan outside the Haripur region; his education; his religion as the majority religion in Pakistan; his ability to speak the two main languages of Pakistan; and his ability to have lived in the Australian environment for some years.  The Tribunal also separately addressed his concern that, by relocating, he would be exposed to unacceptable and generalised violence, but it did not accept that concern was factually based (as well as his claim that he risked being targeted elsewhere in Pakistan for a Convention reason – a claim which was also rejected).

6. An application to review that decision was dismissed by a Federal Magistrate in virtually the same terms, and for the same reasons, as given in relation to like applications of the other two persons known as AZABQ and AZABP: in this case the decision is AZABR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 825.

7. The appeal to this Court was also heard at the same time as the appeals of the other two persons referred to.  They appeared by the same counsel.  They made the same contentions.  The relevant paragraphs of the reasons for decision of the Tribunal were the same (although the numbering differed slightly because the recital of facts and of the hearing before the Tribunal was a little different in each case).

8. For the reasons given in AZABQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 446 I consider this appeal should also be dismissed with costs.

9. I so order.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Mansfield.

Associate:
Dated:        4 May 2012