Pakistani Hazara refugee unlawfully denied visa: Australian High Court
Court rules the law required the govt to grant visa within 90 days of refugee's arrival
In this file photo, Australian navy personnel transfer Afghanistan asylum-seekers to a Indonesian rescue boat near Panaitan island, West Java on August 31, 2012 after the refugee's boat sunk. PHOTO: AFP
CANBERRA:
The High Court of Australia on Wednesday ruled that former immigration minister Scott Morrison's denial of visa to a Pakistani Hazara refugee was unlawful, The Guardian reported.
The denial was based on government's policy to not grant an Australian visa to unauthorised maritime arrival.
The court ruled that the law required the minister to grant the visa within 90 days. The minister had denied the refugee from Pakistan a visa on grounds that it would not serve the "national interest" to grant him protection as he had arrived on Christmas Island by boat.
The minister’s efforts to prolong the plaintiff’s detention by simply refusing to grant the visa was also held to be unlawful by the court.
The High Court said the man faced a real chance of being seriously harmed or killed by extremist groups if he was returned to Pakistan.
He was initially permitted to apply for a visa by Labor immigration minister, Chris Bowen, but his application was rejected. However, on appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal, he was found to be a refugee requiring protection.
But the man was then denied a visa because the minister, by then the Coalition’s Morrison, unilaterally capped the number of visas to be issued.
Soon after the High Court's order, Chief Justice Robert French “made an order commanding the minister to grant the plaintiff a permanent protection visa”.
The current immigration minister, Peter Dutton, acknowledged the high court’s judgment and said a permanent protection visa would be issued within seven days.
“The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is looking into the implications of the decision, but they appear to be limited,” a spokesperson said.
“This decision doesn’t affect the government’s policy that illegal maritime arrivals will not be granted permanent protection visas.”
The Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said the government’s actions showed its “arrogance” in dealing with asylum seekers and refugees.
“The immigration minister is not above the law, despite his consistent efforts to undermine the Parliament and the High Court,” she said.
The senator further said the man was a refugee, he came to Australia asking for help and it’s only after being dragged through the courts that the government will recognise its duty and offer him protection.
The executive director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, David Manne, welcomed the decision, saying the high court had ruled unanimously that the government had acted unlawfully in denying a person found to be a refugee protection, simply because he had arrived by boat.
“We are carefully studying the potential implications of the ruling for other refugees who arrived by boat, but who were refused a permanent protection visa because of their method of arrival.”
A spokesperson for the Human Rights Law Centre, Daniel Webb, said the high court ruling was significant in setting limits to ministerial power.
“Being a boat arrival already triggers a range of severe legal consequences under the Migration Act. The High Court has said it was not for the immigration minister to unilaterally attach more under the guise of ‘the national interest’,” Webb said.
The government has been ordered to pay costs.
The High Court of Australia on Wednesday ruled that former immigration minister Scott Morrison's denial of visa to a Pakistani Hazara refugee was unlawful, The Guardian reported.
The denial was based on government's policy to not grant an Australian visa to unauthorised maritime arrival.
The court ruled that the law required the minister to grant the visa within 90 days. The minister had denied the refugee from Pakistan a visa on grounds that it would not serve the "national interest" to grant him protection as he had arrived on Christmas Island by boat.
The minister’s efforts to prolong the plaintiff’s detention by simply refusing to grant the visa was also held to be unlawful by the court.
The High Court said the man faced a real chance of being seriously harmed or killed by extremist groups if he was returned to Pakistan.
He was initially permitted to apply for a visa by Labor immigration minister, Chris Bowen, but his application was rejected. However, on appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal, he was found to be a refugee requiring protection.
But the man was then denied a visa because the minister, by then the Coalition’s Morrison, unilaterally capped the number of visas to be issued.
Soon after the High Court's order, Chief Justice Robert French “made an order commanding the minister to grant the plaintiff a permanent protection visa”.
The current immigration minister, Peter Dutton, acknowledged the high court’s judgment and said a permanent protection visa would be issued within seven days.
“The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is looking into the implications of the decision, but they appear to be limited,” a spokesperson said.
“This decision doesn’t affect the government’s policy that illegal maritime arrivals will not be granted permanent protection visas.”
The Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said the government’s actions showed its “arrogance” in dealing with asylum seekers and refugees.
“The immigration minister is not above the law, despite his consistent efforts to undermine the Parliament and the High Court,” she said.
The senator further said the man was a refugee, he came to Australia asking for help and it’s only after being dragged through the courts that the government will recognise its duty and offer him protection.
The executive director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, David Manne, welcomed the decision, saying the high court had ruled unanimously that the government had acted unlawfully in denying a person found to be a refugee protection, simply because he had arrived by boat.
“We are carefully studying the potential implications of the ruling for other refugees who arrived by boat, but who were refused a permanent protection visa because of their method of arrival.”
A spokesperson for the Human Rights Law Centre, Daniel Webb, said the high court ruling was significant in setting limits to ministerial power.
“Being a boat arrival already triggers a range of severe legal consequences under the Migration Act. The High Court has said it was not for the immigration minister to unilaterally attach more under the guise of ‘the national interest’,” Webb said.
The government has been ordered to pay costs.