Amiri v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1262

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Amiri v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1262

DAVOOD HOSSEIN AMIRI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NO S21 OF 2001

O’LOUGHLIN J
ADELAIDE
22 MAY 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S21 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	DAVOOD 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	S21 OF 2001

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

JUDGE:	O’LOUGHLIN J
DATE:	14 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have considered all of the material that was put forward on the applicant’s behalf, but it is not for this court to decide whether he should or should not be treated as a refugee.  That was the task of the departmental officer when he first interviewed Davood on 2 April 2000.  That was the task of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) when Davood asked for a second hearing on 30 January 2001.  Today all I am able to do is to review what the Tribunal said and did to see whether the Tribunal made a mistake when it came to its decision.  Even though I tried to explain that to Davood, he has spoken today a lot about Christianity.  He has spoken to me as if he wishes me to re-examine his application to be a refugee.  That is what I cannot do.

2. Having read all of the papers, having listened to what he has said today, I cannot find any mistake in the Tribunal’s findings.  The very grave difficulty that Davood faces is that, on his own story, he did not tell the truth to the departmental officer when the first arrived in Australia.  His story is that he believes in Christianity; that he has read the Bible; that in April 1999 he started attending secret meetings; that in September 1999 he, his brother and his sister got into trouble with the Basiji because they were wearing crosses around their necks.

3. He heard of the Basiji raiding a secret meeting of Christians at which he was not present but then, he says, they raided his house, found a Bible, seized it, and arrested his father.  He said he was advised to leave the country or face death.  That story, if it is true, is a dreadful story.  If that story were true, one would expect him to have told at least part of it when he first arrived in Australia.  When he was first interviewed by the 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.”

   Then he was 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.”

4. Davood told me today that he was confused when this interview took place and he said he did not trust the system, but the applicant came to Australia asking for refugee status and yet he would not tell Australian authorities the truth.  How does he expect Australia to help him if he will not tell Australia the truth?  That is why he is in the trouble he is in today.  Later on when he applied for a protection visa he had some professional help and in the printed document that was typed on his behalf he said:

   “I did not speak about this [meaning religion] at my first interview because I was afraid and I was with strict Muslims.  I am still very frightened to practise my religion.”

   That was on 10 October 2000.  Two months later, on 19 December 2000, his agent told a different story.  The agent wrote on his behalf to the Tribunal saying:

   “When the applicant first arrived in the detention camp he was advised by other detainees who have been in the camp longer than him not to say anything at the initial interview because he would be given an opportunity to explain everything to his legal representative at a later stage.”

   This is a different story to the story he wrote on his application for a protection visa.  It is not the story he told the departmental officer when he was first interviewed.  Davood has not seen fit to tell Australia the truth and, when the time came for him to appear before the Tribunal it could not feel confident that Davood had told the truth.

5. There is much which has been written in the Tribunal’s reasons with which I agree and I incorporate them into my reasons as part of my decision in refusing this application.  I have only been able to find one error in the reasons of the Tribunal, where the Tribunal incorrectly said that Davood had never claimed he was given any instructions in relation to what he should say to the authorities when he was interviewed.  That error appears at page 103 of the green book.

6. The letter of 19 December from his agent to the Tribunal did say that Davood was claiming he had been advised to say nothing at the initial interview but, having regard to the many different stories that Davood has told, the mistake that the Tribunal made is not sufficient for the Court to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.  Davood’s application to this Court must therefore be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) 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