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

[2002] FCA 1368

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AAAB of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2002] FCA 1368

AAAB OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

A 32 OF 2002

DOWSETT J
11 OCTOBER 2002
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 32 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	AAAB 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 32 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	AAAB 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. The applicant, a Bulgarian national, arrived in Australia on 28 November 2001, and subsequently lodged an application for a protection visa.  The application was refused on 28 December 2001.  She applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).  That application was unsuccessful, the relevant member, Mr Vrachnas, dismissing it with reasons on 8 April this year. 

2. A perusal of his reasons indicates that the applicant’s case for refugee status was based upon her activities as a journalist and author in Bulgaria.  She said that as a result of her political writings, she had been, on occasions, assaulted and otherwise harassed.  She was the subject of criminal proceedings.  Steps were taken to have her dealt with for mental illness.  That brief outline is sufficient for present purposes.

3. As is common in cases of this kind, the Tribunal had regard to what is called country information; that is, information from various diplomatic and other sources concerning conditions in the country of origin of the relevant applicant.  The Tribunal also had regard to the fact that the applicant was permitted to leave the country and that until shortly before she left, she appeared to have been allowed to continue practising as a journalist.

1. In those circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant had any well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.  Although the applicant has filed numerous affidavits and an amended application, she made it clear in her submissions today that the only irregularity upon which she sought to rely was, in effect, an allegation of bias or bad faith on the part of the Tribunal in reaching its decision.  Notwithstanding that statement, the applicant has criticised various findings of fact and claimed that aspects of the case were overlooked by the Tribunal in reaching its decision.  Those matters are not properly the subject matter of review in proceedings of this kind. 

2. The major thrust of the applicant’s case is that the relevant Tribunal member was biased against her.  The alleged evidence of this seems to be the way in which he dealt with the facts of the case and, more importantly, the assertion that copies of tape recordings of an interview between the applicant and the Tribunal were, in some way, edited.  The applicant alleges that matters dealt with in the interview are not recorded on her copy of the tapes.  I asked her to identify those matters.  She said that there was no reference in the tapes to the difficulties which she had experienced as a journalist.  This matter was dealt with in some detail by the Tribunal in its reasons.  The applicant did not suggest that any particular aspect of that treatment was unsupported by the evidence, although she asserted that there was other evidence which was not referred to in the reasons.  There is nothing unusual or suspicious about that.  I deal with this matter only because I want to make it clear that if I thought there was any rational reason for suspecting that the tapes had been edited, I would be anxious to investigate it.  The applicant’s inability to identify other discrete subject matter which had been deleted from the tapes and the fact that such areas as she did seek to identify were clearly dealt with in the reasons, lead me to the view that the applicant’s complaint is fanciful.  If the decision-maker had gone to the trouble of deleting from the tapes all references to the applicant’s position as a journalist, he would hardly have dealt with the matter in so much detail in his reasons.

3. The applicant’s response to this is to say that the Tribunal did not deal in detail with her experience as a journalist.  That is plainly incorrect.  The applicant also asserts that the Tribunal did not give her a fair hearing.  There is simply no evidence to support this.  All other criticisms of the decision seem to me to relate to factual matters not properly the subject matter of prerogative review.  In the circumstances, no basis is demonstrated for upsetting the decision.  The application will be dismissed.

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