Bahambari v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1338

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bahambari v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1338

GHORBAN ALI BAKHSHI BAHAMBARI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 213 OF 2001

HILL J
22 AUGUST 2001

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	213 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GHORBAN ALI BAKHSHI BAHAMBARI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent Minister.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	213 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GHORBAN ALI BAKHSHI BAHAMBARI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	22 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Mr Bahambari, is a national of Iran.  He arrived in Australia on 10 October 2000 and applied for a protection visa on 1 November 2000.  His application for a protection visa was refused and he applied for a review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).  It is a criterion, for the grant of a protection visa, that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as affected by the subsequent 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which are herein compendiously referred to as the “Convention”.

2. In general terms, Australia will have protection obligations under the Convention if the person applying is a refugee as defined in article 1A(2) of the Convention.  A refugee is defined to be a person who:

   “… owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a political social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…”

3. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was, within the meaning of that definition, a refugee. 

4. Before the Tribunal, the applicant put his case on two bases.  The first was that he was at risk of persecution in Iran because of political opinion imputed to him.  He claimed that it was believed that he was a supporter of the Mojahedin (the “MEK”).  The second basis upon which he put his claim was that he had converted to Christianity and for that reason, if returned, would suffer persecution.

5. His case for persecution on the ground of imputed political opinion turned upon a number of matters to which he referred.  These included that he had worked in a shop owned by a man whose son Reza, a friend of Mr Bahambari, was a member of the MEK.  The man in fact was said to have been ultimately sentenced to imprisonment and the son arrested and later killed.  Another matter upon which…