Altinkilic v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1805

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Altinkilic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1805

MIGRATION - protection visa - application for order to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal affirming decision of delegate refusing grant - no question of principle

AHMET ALTINKILIC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

V442 OF 2000

MARSHALL J
MELBOURNE
11 DECEMBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V442 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	AHMET ALTINKILIC APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V442 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	AHMET ALTINKILIC APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	11 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Ahmet Altinkilic for an order to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) that Mr Altinkilic is not entitled to a protection visa.

2. Mr Altinkilic’s application for a protection visa was refused by a delegate of the respondent on 19 November 1998. On 9 March 2000, the RRT afforded an oral hearing to Mr Altinkilic. On 10 May 2000, the RRT affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant Mr Altinkilic a protection visa.

3. In its decision, the RRT made the following findings of fact about Mr Altinkilic:

   ·    He arrived in Australia on a genuine Georgian passport.

   ·    He travelled to Australia as part of a group of martial arts exponents and in possession of a certificate from the “International Okinawan Goju Ryu Karate”.

   ·    He has lived in Turkey since his primary school years.

   ·    He has never undertaken military training in Turkey which is compulsory for Turkish nationals.

   ·    He is not a national of Turkey.

   ·    He is a national of Georgia and is the person identified in his valid Georgian passport.

   ·    He is able to return to Georgia on the passport he holds.

   ·    He does not have, and does not claim to have, a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Georgia.

   ·    He was apprehended at Melbourne airport by the Australian Federal Police on 3 July 1999 in possession of a one-way ticket to Istanbul but his ultimate destination was Georgia.

   ·    In order to return to Georgia he was content to travel to or through Turkey, indicating that he does not have a subjective fear of persecution if returned to Turkey.

4. Mr Altinkilic’s application did not disclose any legal basis upon which the decision of the RRT should be set aside. He was afforded pro bono assistance for the purpose of considering whether to file an amended, more detailed application, referring to any alleged error of law evidenced in the RRT’s reasons or its decision making process. Pro bono counsel was unable to discern any arguable grounds for review of the RRT’s decision and advised the Court that he would not be appearing on Mr Altinkilic’s behalf.

5. Mr Altinkilic initially represented himself at various directions hearings but made no appearance at the trial despite being aware that the matter was listed for hearing this morning. He has been unable to identify any error of law in the RRT’s decision or it processes. Essentially, the RRT disbelieved Mr Altinkilic’s evidence that he was a Turkish national. The Court is in no position to interfere with that finding of fact. It is a finding which was reasonably open to the RRT on the evidence before it after hearing Mr Altinkilic and observing him give sworn testimony.

6. In these circumstances, there is no basis to set aside the decision of the RRT.

7. The Court will order as follows:

   1.          The application be dismissed.

   2.          The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:             11 December 2000

Mr Altinkilic failed to appear at the trial at which an interpreter was ready to assist him.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms C Beaton-Wells
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	11 December 2000
Date of Judgment:	11 December 2000 (ex-tempore, as revised from the transcript)