CAT/C/64/D/680/2015
to run his business. In March 2008, he received threats from the Taliban telling him to close
the music store, after which he decided to move it into his house. In May 2008, he was
attacked at home by a group of Taliban members who punched and kicked him, and
destroyed all of his compact discs, compact disc players and televisions. Following the
attack, the complainant fled to Karachi and then worked on a ship until March 2009, when
he returned to Pakistan.
2.2
The complainant alleges that, in June 2009, he assisted the Pakistan Army in
identifying a number of Taliban militants active in his village and that the militants were
arrested and subsequently executed. In November 2009, he received a telephone call from
the Taliban threatening to kill him and his family for having assisted the Army in
identifying the militants. The complainant claims that the Taliban followed through on the
threat in December 2009, when his house was attacked by gunfire at night. After the attack,
the complainant went to Karachi, where he stayed for approximately one month. While he
was in Karachi, he was hired by a shipping company and was on board a ship for about one
year. The complainant returned to Pakistan in January 2011 to see his family. He claims
that in April 2011 he received another call from the Taliban threatening him for having
assisted the Army in the identification of some Taliban members who were subsequently
executed. Following this incident, he fled Pakistan once again and boarded a ship heading
to Australia.
2.3
The complainant arrived in Australia on 15 December 2011, as the holder of a
seafarer’s visa. He applied for a protection visa on 6 February 2012, which was refused on
15 May 2012 by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship under section
65 of the Migration Act. He appealed this decision on 29 May 2012. On 12 March 2013,
the Refugee Review Tribunal confirmed the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal considered
that the complainant was not a person in respect of whom Australia had protection
obligations under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or its national
legislation, because he had not been able to demonstrate that he would be subject to serious
harm if returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal considered his fear of being persecuted by the
Taliban in Pakistan was not well founded. The Tribunal took this decision on the basis of its
assessment that some of the complainant’s declarations were vague and contradictory.
However, the Tribunal accepted as credible some facts presented by the complainant, for
instance that he had a music store, that he had been obliged by the Taliban to close the store
as he had been physically attacked by some members of the Taliban in May 2008 and that
his house had been attacked by gunfire in December 2009. The Tribunal did not, however,
accept as a fact that the complainant was threatened by the Taliban because he had assisted
the Pakistan Army to identify some Taliban members. Nor did the Tribunal consider that
the complainant would be at risk if returned to Pakistan because of religious or political
reasons. The Tribunal suggested that the complainant could relocate to another location in
Pakistan where he would feel safer, for example, Karachi. It considered that the
complainant’s fear of persecution by the Taliban was merely subjective.
2.4
On 2 May 2013, the complainant applied for a ministerial intervention under the
Migration Act, requesting that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection grant
him a protection visa. On 18 December 2013, the complainant received a letter informing
him that his application had been rejected, as the Minister considered that it would not be in
the public interest to intervene in his case.
2.5
The complainant applied for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal
decision before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 10 February 2014. On 12 March
2015, the Court dismissed the application. The Court rejected the complainant’s request for
an extension of the deadline to present a case before it, as it considered that such an
extension was not necessary in the interests of the administration of justice. 1 The
complainant alleged that the delay in presenting the application to the Court had been due
to the fact that his former lawyers had decided to apply for a ministerial intervention,
instead of presenting the case to the Court. The complainant claimed that he had relied on
1
2
The complainant’s application to the Federal Circuit Court was submitted 335 days from the date of
the decision sought to be reviewed. The law requires that an application must be made within 35 days
of the date of the migration decision.