Aslanpour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1533

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Aslanpour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1533

FAHIMEH ASLANPOUR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 844 of 2000

MATHEWS J
24 OCTOBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N844 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	FAHIMEH ASLANPOUR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MATHEWS J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant is to pay the 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	N844 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	FAHIMEH ASLANPOUR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MATHEWS J
DATE:	24 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 3 July 2000 in which the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the respondent's delegate to refuse the applicant a protection visa. 

2. In order to be eligible for a protection visa an applicant must show that he or she has a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in his or her country of nationality.  In this case Mrs Aslanpour says that she has a well founded fear of persecution in Iran by reason of her political opinion. 

3. Mrs Aslanpour arrived in Australia from Iran on 15 July 1999 accompanied by her daughter.  She had left Tehran two days earlier.  On 27 August 1999 she and her daughter applied for a protection visa.  A lengthy statement accompanied Mrs Aslanpour's application, setting out the details of her claim.  On 21 February 2000 an interview took place between Mrs Aslanpour and the Minister's delegate in which she was assisted by a Farsi interpreter. On 28 February 2000 her application was refused by the delegate.  On 23 March 2000 she applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision.  An interview took place between the Tribunal member and Mrs Aslanpour on 26 June 2000.  The Tribunal's decision was given a week later, on 3 July.  Her claim now relates to herself only as her daughter has moved to the USA.

4. Essentially, Mrs Aslanpour says that she has been a long time supporter of the Hezb-e-Mellat-eIran Party in Iran, sometimes described as the “Iran Nation Party”.  After the brutal killing of two of the party leaders in November 1998, a number of rallies and demonstrations took place in Tehran in which Mrs Aslanpour participated together with her son and her daughter.  Her son was then a student at the University of Tehran.  On the night of 8 July 1999 a student dormitory at the University of Tehran was attacked by security forces.  Many students were killed and injured.  There was widespread outrage in Iran about this event and further demonstrations and protests took place in Tehran over the next few days.  Mrs Aslanpour and both her children participated in these rallies.  She made sandwiches, she said, for the protesters as did other mothers whose children were involved in the rallies. 

5. Mrs Aslanpour had already planned to travel to Australia with her daughter on 13 July 1999.  They left Iran as planned on that date.  Her intention at the time, she said, was to visit her sister in Australia and then return to Tehran.  However, she later learnt from her husband that shortly after her departure both he and their son were arrested for participating in the July 1999 demonstrations.  Her husband had in fact been out of Tehran during these demonstrations and he satisfied the authorities that he had not participated in them, thus gaining his release.  However Mrs Aslanpour said that their son was still held by the Iranian authorities.  Moreover, her husband told her that she also had been blacklisted and would be arrested on her return.  She therefore feared persecution on the ground of her political opinion.

6. The Tribunal did not accept Mrs Aslanpour's evidence on several crucial issues.  It pointed out that there were a number of significant inconsistencies between claims made by Mrs Aslanpour in statements provided to the delegate and the Tribunal and in her evidence before the Tribunal.  It did not accept that she or her family had suffered any repercussions as a result of the July 1999 demonstrations.  It noted that the role played by Mrs Aslanpour and her children in those demonstrations was no greater than that played by thousands of others who participated in them.  The Tribunal made the following finding;

   “Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant attended the July demonstrations it cannot be satisfied that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution arising from these demonstrations.  By her own admission

   she encountered no problems at the demonstrations and departed the country shortly after.

   The Tribunal cannot be satisfied - and does not accept - the applicant's claims that her husband has been arrested, that son has also been arrested and imprisoned, or that the authorities have issued an arrest warrant against her are true. The Tribunal therefore gives no weight to these claims about which the Tribunal has no doubt that the applicant has been untruthful.”

7. A little later the Tribunal made the following observation:

   “Given the significant adverse findings on credibility in relation to the applicant, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant has a real chance of being persecuted for a convention reason in Iran in the foreseeable future, and is therefore not satisfied that the applicant's fear of persecution for a Convention reason is well founded.”

8. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa to Mrs Aslanpour. 

9. The application for review to this court specified three grounds of review.  They were first, that procedures that were required by the Act or Regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed as required by s 476(1)(a) of the Act; second, that the decision involved an error of law pursuant to s 476(1)(e); third that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision pursuant to s  476(1)(g).

10. The applicant is unrepresented in this court and has made her submissions with the assistance of an interpreter.  I explained to her at the outset that the Court's powers to review the Tribunal's decisions are extremely limited. I asked her to make submissions in support of her grounds of review.  Mrs Aslanpour then made serious criticisms of the Tribunal member who decided her application, and of the way in which the interview between them was conducted.  She complained that the Tribunal member was not serious about her case and did not listen to her.  Nor did she give serious consideration to what Mrs Aslanpour was saying.  Mrs Aslanpour said that it seemed to her that the member had already decided the case against her. 

11. These criticisms of the Tribunal member are not relevant to any of the existing grounds specified in Mrs Aslanpour's application for review.  They would, if anything, be relevant to a ground under s 476(1)(f), that the decision was induced or affected by actual bias.  The “Relevant Documents” submitted to the Court before the hearing did not include a transcript of the interview between the Tribunal member and Mrs Aslanpour.  Mrs Aslanpour tendered a copy in Court, and I adjourned the proceedings in order to read it.  I had in mind at that time that the application for review might need to be amended in order to include a ground under s 476(1)(f).  Had that occurred, it would have been necessary to further adjourn the proceedings in order to enable the respondent to meet this new claim.  However, having read the transcript of the interview between the Tribunal and Mrs Aslanpour, I saw no merit in adopting that course.

12. Mrs Aslanpour complained that the Tribunal member was aggressive in her approach towards her.  However the transcript in no way bears this out.  Certainly the Tribunal member pointed out to Mrs Aslanpour on a number of occasions the inconsistencies between various accounts she had given.  This the member was not only entitled to do, but as a matter of fairness it was desirable for her to do.

13. In short, there is nothing in the transcript which supports Mrs Aslanpour’s complaints about the Tribunal member’s conduct of this interview.  There is certainly nothing to suggest that the member approached the application with a closed mind, this being the essence of a claim of actual bias.  Accordingly, I can see no utility in allowing the application for review to be amended by adding a ground which would be bound in any event to failure.

14. As to the grounds set out in the original application, Mrs Aslanpour being unrepresented, has been unable to particularise them.  As is my practice in these matters, I have closely examined the Tribunal's reasons in order to discern whether any error appears on their face I can find no reviewable error in any of the Tribunal's reasons or processes.

15. Accordingly I propose to dismiss the application with costs.  The order I make is that the application be dismissed.  The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Mathews.

Associate:

Dated:             24 October 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	24 October 2000
Date of Judgment:	24 October 2000