Abaskharoun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 222

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Abaskharoun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 222

RAFAT ABASKHAROUN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
 MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 77 OF 2001

EMMETT J
9 MARCH 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 77 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	RAFAT ABASKHAROUN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

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

3.The respondent inform the applicant in writing as soon as practicable of the terms of these orders and of the terms of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a).

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 77 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	RAFAT ABASKHAROUN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	9 MARCH 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Egypt who arrived in Australia on 11 July 1998.  On 3 November 1998 he lodged an application for a protection (class AZ) visa.  On 2 December 1998 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 30 December 1998 the applicant applied for a review of that decision.  On 21 December 2000 the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant a protection visa.  By application filed in this Court on 25 January 2001 the applicant sought an order of review of the decision of the Tribunal.

2. When the matter was called on for directions today, the date fixed in the application, there was no appearance for the applicant after being called outside the court.  The Minister, the respondent in the proceedings, therefore sought an order under Order 10 rule 3(2) which provides:

   “If no applicant appears before the Court on a directions hearing the Court may dismiss the application or make any other order which it thinks proper.”

3. In his protection visa application, according to the reasons of the Tribunal, the applicant stated that he is a single man in his late thirties. He is a Christian from Assiut in Upper Egypt.  He lived in Egypt from his birth until August 1985 when he went to Greece.  He remained in Greece until December 1993 and returned to Egypt until April 1994, when he returned to Greece, remaining there until November 1997.  He then travelled to Australia where he remained until April 1998 when he returned to Greece.  He returned to Australia again in July 1998 when he lodged his protection visa application.

4. The applicant claimed that he left Egypt because of religious persecution.  He claimed that he was a member of the Christian association called the “Brothers of God”, whose aims were to fight Islamic fundamentalism, assist Christians and advance the Christian cause.  He said that he would face problems if he returned to Egypt.  He said that he had returned for four months in 1993 because his mother was ill. At that stage he had been detained.  He claims that he had to pay a large sum of money to secure his release. The applicant claims that those things happened to him because he was a Christian.

5. The Tribunal in its reasons accepted that the applicant is a Coptic Christian and that he may experience some discrimination if he returns to Egypt. However it was not satisfied that such discrimination would be of sufficient gravity or severity as to amount to persecution.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance that the applicant would encounter other forms of ill treatment, such as arbitrary arrest, detention, physical harm or death, either at the hands of the state authorities, or at the hands of private individuals enjoying the unwillingness or inability of the state to prevent them, which would amount to persecution.  Accordingly the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution in Egypt in the foreseeable future.

6. The application for an order of review does not specify any grounds that would comply with s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”).  The application states the grounds as follows:

   “Review of decision to reject my application for protection visa. All details of all persecution of Coptic Christians of Egypt myself are enclosed on file.  I will enclose some more evidence if you request from me to do so.”

7. The applicant does not appear to be represented in the proceedings since the application was filed in his own name. However the reasons of the Tribunal indicate that he did have an adviser in connection with the hearing before the Tribunal. 

8. I have considered the reasons of the Tribunal. No grounds within s 476(1) of the Act are apparent to me from my consideration of the reasons. Having regard to the lack of grounds in the application and the failure of the applicant to attend court for the directions hearing today, I consider that it is appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant to Order 10 rule 3. However, I will direct the Minister to notify the applicant of my orders and the reasons for making them and to give written notice to the applicant of the provisions of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a), which provides that the Court may set aside an order where the order has been made in the absence of a party.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             9 March 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	9 March 2001
Date of Judgment:	9 March 2001