GUE18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 25 August 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] FCA 1213
• Date: 25 August 2026

Federal Court of Australia

GUE18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1213

ORDERS

NSD 666 of 2025
BETWEEN:	GUE18 Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

order made by:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 August 2026

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the First Respondent is amended to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs, fixed in the amount of $5,000.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J:

introduction

1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2) (FCFCOA): GUE18 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 421 (J). The primary judge dismissed an application for review of a decision of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed a decision not to grant the Appellant a protection visa.

2 The Appellant’s notice of appeal largely repeats the arguments put to the primary judge. It is said that the primary judge erred in law by failing to find that:

the Tribunal’s assessment of the Appellant’s credibility, based on inconsistencies in the date of conversion and land donation was legally unreasonable, because (it is said) those inconsistencies were minor or immaterial and he had plausible explanations for them (Ground 1);

the Tribunal relied on an irrelevant consideration in treating Majlis Wahdat-ul-Muslimeen (MWM) as a political organisation. It is said the Tribunal failed to consider whether the Appellant’s understanding of MWM was religious in nature, and improperly used its characterisation of MWM to discredit the Appellant without proper evidentiary foundation (Ground 2);

the Tribunal constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not properly considering corroborative evidence, including a First Information Report (FIR) and evidence of the High Court advocate from Pakistan. It is said that the Tribunal’s rejection of these documents was based on generalised country information and failed to properly evaluate their probative value (Ground 3).

Those arguments should be rejected, essentially for the reasons given by the primary judge.

3 The Appellant represented himself at the hearing, and made different arguments, relating particularly to difficulties with the interpreter at the interview before the delegate. Those arguments should also be rejected. The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs.

background

4 Arrival in Australia (Jul 2014): The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan (J [2]). He arrived in Australia in July 2014 on a tourist visa that was valid for 3 months.

5 Application for protection visa (Oct 2014): On 22 October 2014, the Appellant applied for a protection visa. He claimed to fear harm because of his alleged conversion from the Sunni sect to the Shia sect of Islam, and because he donated a plot of land to MWM, a Shia organisation (J [2]).

6 Delegate refuses application (Sep 2015): On 2 September 2015, a delegate of the Minister refused the application for a protection visa. The delegate was not satisfied as to the credibility of the Appellant or the veracity of his claims.

7 Application to AAT (Sep 2015): On 30 September 2015, the Appellant applied to the Tribunal for merits review of the delegate’s decision.

8 AAT confirms refusal decision (Dec 2018): On 4 December 2018, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision (J [1]).

9 The Appellant’s key claim was that on return he would be killed by the Sunni extremist group “Sipah-e-Saba (Lashkar-e-Jhangvi)” (SSP), who threatened him because he “converted” from Sunni to Shia Islam and refused to sell them his deceased Shia father’s plot of land, but donated it for use as a Shia school (AAT [32]). The Tribunal did not find the Appellant to be a credible and truthful witness. The Tribunal had regard particularly to various inconsistencies in the Appellant’s evidence throughout the process, and the unpersuasive nature of some key aspects of his claims (AAT [34]).

10 “Conversion”: The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s evidence about his “conversion” from Sunni to Shia Islam over the course of his protection visa process to be contrived and inconsistent, including with country information. Country information emphasised that Sunni and Shia are sects of the same religion (Islam), and that no conversion is required (AAT [37], [38]).

11 Inconsistencies in timing of events: The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s evidence regarding the two events central to his claims – his alleged “conversion” and the handover of his father’s plot of land for a Shia school – was significantly undermined by inconsistencies in his evidence regarding the timing of these events (AAT [40]).

(a) Throughout the protection visa process, the Appellant identified the date on which he was accepted into the Shia sect as 12 May 2014, and this was also given in the statements of the three witnesses (who provided evidence about his conversion). He also told the Tribunal and the Department that he decided to become a Shia on the day he handed over his land for the Shia school. However, the date the Appellant gave for this handover was 10 June 2014 – a month later than his claimed “conversion”. These June dates also appear on the land transfer document which the Appellant provided in support of his claims.

(b) Moreover, in his statement submitted to the Department after his interview, the Appellant stated that his “conversion to the Shia sect” had taken place before he declined the SSP’s offer of money and donated the plot of land to the Shia mosque.

12 The Tribunal found that these inconsistencies “call[ed] into question the sequence of events that the [Appellant] claims resulted in threats from Sunni extremists and raise[d] serious doubts about the veracity of his evidence, as well as the supporting documents he provided” (AAT [40]).

13 Concerns about evidence regarding the MWM: The Tribunal was also concerned about the Appellant’s evidence regarding the MWM, the Shia organisation he initially identified as the recipient of his father’s plot of land for the Shia school (AAT [41]).

The Appellant submitted two statements from the Secretary-General of the organisation’s Bhalwal district. The second statement described MWM as a “religious” organisation, not involved in any political activity or affiliated with any political party. At hearing, the Tribunal made four unsuccessful attempts to telephone the Secretary-General, whom the Appellant nominated as a witness in Pakistan (AAT [41]).

At the hearing, the Appellant described MWM as a “community organisation”, taking care of Shia people in the area and “not a powerful organisation”. He reiterated that it was not a political party, part of a national political party or linked with any political party. However, after the hearing, the Tribunal found that, contrary to the Appellant’s evidence and Secretary-General’s statement, the web address identified on the letterhead of all the Secretary-General’s statements linked through to the site of the MWM Pakistan, a Shia political organisation. Further, sources such as Wikipedia and Pakistani media also identified the MWM as a major Shia political party with a presence all over the country, including in Punjab (AAT [42]).

In light of these contradictions, the Tribunal invited the Appellant after the hearing to make submissions on whether he really had donated land to the MWM (AAT [43]). The Appellant’s response attached a statement from the Secretary-General of MWM on the same letterhead with the same link to the website of MWM Pakistan. The Secretary-General reiterated his earlier statement that MWM was “a religious organisation and is not engaged in any political activity nor is affiliated with any political party”, and stated that MWM “did not have any capability for engaging in political activities” and that “not a single person related to our party has contested the recent elections in Pakistan held in July 2018, neither for The National Assembly nor for the Provincial Assemblies. … In a nutshell, [MWM] Pakistan is a Shia religious organisation established solely for promoting and safeguarding the interests of Shia Community and do[es]n’t have any political connections or ambitions, whatsoever” (AAT [44]).

The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s response (and the Secretary-General’s statement) did not explain why, if MWM was not a political organisation, the web address provided on the Secretary-General’s letterhead linked through to the website of the political organisation of the same name. The statement that no one related to the MWM contested the 2018 elections was inconsistent with Pakistan media reports. Those inconsistencies raised doubts as to whether the Appellant had been truthful in his evidence regarding his involvement with the MWM, and the genuineness of the documents purported to have been provided by the Secretary-General of the MWM’s Bhalwal branch (AAT [45]).

14 Land transfer document: The Tribunal had regard to a hand-written land transfer document and a letter from the Revenue Office provided by the Appellant which indicated that it was not possible to issue a computerised property ownership document (FARD). However, in light of DFAT’s advice that document fraud is endemic in Pakistan, as well as its concerns about the credibility of other material submitted by the Appellant and his credibility generally, the Tribunal did not attach any weight to these documents (AAT [47]).

15 FIR and statement from High Court advocate: The supporting documents provided by the Appellant included a First Information Report (FIR) dated 6 June 2014 regarding threats at his home on 5 June 2014, and a letter from a High Court advocate in Pakistan attesting that documents including the FIR were genuine (AAT [7], [14]). The Tribunal did not give weight to...