Pakistani declined refugee status despite claims of being Taliban target

Judge said applicant could not "satisfy the tests for leave to appeal" or "the tests for judicial review". Photo / File

A Pakistan citizen seeking refugee status had his leave for appeal dismissed despite his claim of being a target for the Taliban.

It was his third attempt at claiming refugee or protected person status which would allow him to continue to live in New Zealand.

In the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, Justice Wylie handed down the latest dismissal to the applicant, known as DC, on June 28.

At the High Court, DC filed two interlocutory applications seeking leave to the tribunal's decision and to commence judicial review proceedings.

However, Wylie said DC could not "satisfy the tests for leave to appeal" or "the tests for judicial review" and in turn, the application for leave was dismissed.

DC is from a small village in the Swat Valley region of Pakistan and is married with six children who still live in the village.

In 2005, he started working for the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation as a seaman and on his return to the village in February 2009, he was assaulted by members of the Taliban.

In response, he joined the fight against them and became a member of a committee opposed to the Taliban and secretly began feeding information about them.

Two months later the army took back control of the village but in 2014, the Taliban started hunting down members of the committee DC joined.

He claims he was shot at while returning home to his village in November 2014 after fleeing to the capital Karachi for some time.

In August 2015, he arrived in New Zealand while working onboard a cargo ship and claimed refugee status.

In a decision dated December 21, 2016, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal declined to grant it.

He appealed to the High Court for leave to judicially review the decision but Wylie declined DC leave.

DC then made a second claim for refugee status but it wasn't considered because it was deemed there was no significant change in his circumstances.

Once more, DC appealed to the Tribunal and it found circumstances had changed but nevertheless, his appeal was dismissed again.

Despite filing for interlocutory application in the High Court and seeking leave, Wylie deemed there was no question of law arising from the Tribunal's decision to dismiss.