Amiri v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1263

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Amiri v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1263

HAMID REZA HOSSEIN AMIRI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NO S 22 OF 2001

O’LOUGHLIN J
ADELAIDE
22 MAY 20001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 22 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	HAMID REZA HOSSEIN AMIRI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	O’LOUGHLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed with costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 22 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	HAMID REZA HOSSEIN AMIRI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	O’LOUGHLIN J
DATE:	22 MAY 2001
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Iran.  He arrived in Australia on 26 March 2000 and applied for refugee status.  He was interviewed by an officer of the Immigration Department, who came to the decision that he was not entitled to be classed as a refugee.  That decision was made on 13 November 2000.  Hamid applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to review the decision of the delegate.  That decision, adverse to his interests, was given on 30 January 2001.  Hamid then applied to this Court to review the decision of the Tribunal.  As I explained the applicant at the beginning of these proceedings I am not permitted to examine his case for the third time.  I am only entitled to look at the Tribunal’s findings to see if it made a mistake.

2. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of his religion.  He said that as an Iranian in a Muslim country he had started studying Christianity.  He said that he attended secret meetings, where he listened to teachings about Christianity.  He said the authorities raided one such meeting, although he was not present at the meeting.  He said on another occasion he, his brother and his sister were accosted by the authorities and they were attacked because they were wearing crosses around their neck.

3. He said he was advised to leave the country otherwise he would be killed.  If that story is a true story then it is a dreadful story.  It would be a frightening story.  It would amount to persecution because of his religion, and if all of that were true one could understand why he would want to leave Iran and come to Australia.  However, when he came to Australia he did not tell the authorities any of these things.  When he was interviewed by an officer from the Immigration Department he was told:

   “This interview is your opportunity to provide any reasons why you should not be removed from Australia.”

4. He was also told:

   “You should understand that if the information you give at any future interview is different from what you tell me now this could raise doubts about the reliability of what you have said.”

5. All of this was said to him in the presence of an interpreter who spoke the Farsi language.  We therefore have this most important event.  He has come to Australia, so he tells us, because of his religion and because he is being persecuted for his religion, and he is told that this is the opportunity to give reasons why he should not be removed from Australia, but he said nothing to the interviewing officer about his religion or the persecution.

6. At the interview, he was asked, “Why did you leave your country?”  His answer was, “There were no human rights.  There are injustices.”  He was asked, “What sort of injustices?” and he said, “The young ones don’t have freedom.  There is inflation.  There is no security.”  He was prepared to name three reasons why he left the country.  Religion and persecution were not among those reasons.  He was asked, “Do you have any reasons for not wishing to return to your country?”  He answered by saying, “I don’t have any reasons, but if I do go back I would be in a bad situation.”

7. He was asked, “Why is that?” and he answered, “We have been through a lot of hardship to get here.”  He had every opportunity to tell the officer about his religion and his persecution, but he did not do so.  Later on, much later on, when he applied for a protection visa, he was helped to prepare a statement in English.  He said in paragraph 10 of his statement:

   “I did not speak about this [meaning his religion] at my first interview because I was afraid and I was with strict Muslims.  When we arrived in Australia the interview was very brief and my brother Davood and I saw the tape-recorders and we thought that anything we said would be sent back to Iran.”

8. He had a migration agent acting for him who wrote a letter to the Tribunal on 4 January 2001.  In that letter the agent said that it was his brother who had advised him not to mention his claims about religion and persecution as their voices were being recorded.  When the time came for the Tribunal to consider everything that he had said the Tribunal concluded that it could not rely on what he had told the Tribunal.  This was his fault because he did not tell the Tribunal the true story.

9. It was within the Tribunal’s legal ability to come to that decision.  I cannot interfere with that decision because it was a decision that was available to the Tribunal on the evidence it had received.  I have read Hamid’s applications and the papers he has sent into the court, as well as the agent’s letter and the Tribunal’s reasons.  I can understand why the Tribunal could not rely on what Hamid had told them.

10. If indeed Hamid believes in the Christian religion and wishes to practise it, the information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other country information which the Tribunal obtained points to him, being able to practise Christianity in Iran so long as he does it quietly and without making a public issue about it.  As the Tribunal said, even if he does choose to practise Christianity on his return to Iran, the chances that he would face persecution for this reason is remote and insubstantial.  His application must therefore be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice O’Loughlin .

Associate:

Dated:             22 May 2001

The Applicant appeared in person:
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Michael Roder
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	22 May 2001
Date of Judgment:	22 May 2001