AAAA of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1367

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AAAA of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1367

AAAA OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

A 31 OF 2002

DOWSETT J
11 OCTOBER 2002
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 31 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	AAAA OF 2002 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 OCTOBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 31 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	AAAA OF 2002 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	11 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons should be read with my reasons in AAAB of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1368. The applicant, a Bulgarian, arrived in Australia on 28 November 2001 and subsequently applied for a protection visa. The application was refused. An application to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) was dismissed. The applicant now seeks prerogative relief in this Court. The basis for her claim to refugee status depends upon her assertion that at some time in the early 1990s, she was involved in publication of articles critical of the government for which she has been harassed. She also claims to have been harassed on account of her sister’s political activities and in an attempt to get her to co-operate in having her sister treated as being mentally ill. The Tribunal disposed of the case upon this basis. Before me, the applicant has asserted that the Tribunal misunderstood her case. She has not offered any alternative basis upon which I should proceed.

2. Subsequent to earlier difficulties, she studied law and, in 1998, became a judge.  The Tribunal considered that this indicated an absence of hostility towards her on the part of the government, a view with which it is difficult to disagree.  It was also pointed out that she was permitted to leave the country without difficulty.  In those circumstances the Tribunal was not satisfied that she had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

3. Her amended application, raises a large number of factual matters not properly the subject matter of relief in proceedings of this kind, and alleges breaches of the rules of natural justice and other irregularities.  There is no evidence which supports those allegations.  When called upon to make her submissions, the applicant indicated that she had nothing to say.  She has, in fact, said very little. 

4. The available grounds for relief are now very narrow.  There seems to be no reason in this case to suspect that the decision was made other than in relation to the appropriate subject matter of the Act; nor is there any reason to doubt that it was reasonably capable of reference to the power conferred by the Act.  There is no suggestion of any inviolable statutory restriction upon the power, against which the Tribunal may have offended.  It was suggested that the Tribunal may have been biased, but there is simply no evidence to that effect.  In the circumstances, the application should be dismissed. 

5. There is one matter to which I should refer for the sake of completeness.  In the course of his reasons, the Tribunal member observed that he doubted the applicant’s assertion that she was a judge.  His doubt was based on her relative youth.  There appears not to have been any evidence to support the assumption inherent in that finding, namely that only people of more advanced years are appointed to the judiciary in Bulgaria.  Even a passing familiarity with legal practice in civil law jurisdictions indicates that judges are frequently appointed at much earlier stages in life than is common in common law countries.  It was probably incorrect factually to draw the inference in question.  It seems not to have mattered.  The Tribunal treated her as having been employed in the legal system which itself suggests an absence of government hostility towards her.  In any event, as was pointed out by counsel, this can be nothing more than a factual error.  I am, for my part, satisfied that it did not lead to any miscarriage of justice.  In the circumstances, the application should be dismissed.

6. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            20 November 2002

The applicant appeared in Person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	11 October 2002
Date of Judgment:	11 October 2002