Applicant S1777 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

[2003] FCA 1616

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1777 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1616

APPLICANT S1777 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N1012 OF 2003

EMMETT J
4 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1012 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1777 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed;

2.        the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.

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	N1012 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1777 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	4 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant in this matter is a national of India, whose claims for a protection visa are based on fear of persecution because of religion and political opinion.  The applicant lodged an application for a protection visa on 19 July 1996.  On 3 April 1997, a delegate of the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’), made a decision refusing to grant a protection visa and an application for review of that decision was lodged with Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) on 5 May 1997.  On 2 September 1998, the Tribunal made a decision that it was not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee and affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.

2. This proceeding was commenced in the High Court of Australia and remitted to this Court.  On 27 October 2003, I directed the applicant to file and serve, on or before 24 November 2003, a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law and any affidavits upon which the applicant intends to rely at the hearing.  I adjourned the matter for further directions today.  I also directed that, in the event that the order for filing a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law and affidavits was not complied with, the applicant would be called upon to show cause why the matter should not stand dismissed.  When the matter was called on for further hearing today, there was no appearance for the applicant and the Minister moved pursuant to O 10 r 7(2) of the Federal Court Rules for summary dismissal of the proceeding.

3. I have read the reasons of the Tribunal for its conclusion that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.  The Tribunal observed that the applicant left India legally on his own passport and concluded, on the basis of information available to it, that the applicant was able to leave India legally because he was not of any continuing interest to the authorities for any Convention reason.

4. The applicant claimed that he had a fear of persecution because he is a Sikh.  The Tribunal found that there had been a substantial change in circumstances in the Punjab in recent years and that the situation regarding Sikhs and their supporters elsewhere in India had been settled for many years.  The Tribunal considered that, while it is clear that serious abuses of human rights continue to occur in India, there is no material to indicate that a person of the profile and background of the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution for Convention reason.

5. In all the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to accede to the Minister’s application. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             22 January 2004

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	4 December 2003
Date of Judgment:	4 December 2003