Ferhedieh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1907

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ferhedieh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

HOSHANG FERHEDIEH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 108 of 2001

WILCOX J
4 JULY 2001
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 108 of 2001

BETWEEN:	HOSHANG FERHEDIEH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 JULY 2001
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for review be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

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

W 108 of 2001

BETWEEN:	HOSHANG FERHEDIEH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	4 JULY 2001
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application by Hoshang Ferhedieh for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse Mr Ferhedieh a protection visa.

2. Mr Ferhedieh is unrepresented today.  The hearing has been conducted by video-link with the detention centre at Derby, but he has had the assistance of an interpreter here in Perth. 

3. I explained to Mr Ferhedieh the limits on the Court’s jurisdiction to review Tribunal decisions. I mentioned s 476 of the Migration Act 1958. Mr Ferhedieh told me he understood this restriction. However, he has not put any matter that could conceivably raise a ground under s 476.

4. The major matter put to the Court by Mr Ferhedieh relates to some documents he would have liked to have had at the time of the Tribunal hearing.  As I understand his complaint, these documents should have been made available to him.  They were amongst documents that were being held at the detention centre.  Mr Ferhedieh blamed his lawyers for the fact that the documents were not available at the hearing.

5. I asked Mr Ferhedieh the nature of the documents.  He told me they concerned land he owned in Iran.  Apparently some of his land was taken for an airport.  There is no relevance to the present case in the taking of the land for the airport. 

6. The documents may also have demonstrated the proximity of Mr Ferhedieh’s mechanical workshop to the Zoroastrian cemetery mentioned in the Tribunal’s reasons.  However, the Tribunal indicated that it accepted Mr Ferhedieh’s claim that his workshop was near the cemetery.  In these circumstances, it is difficult to see that the documents would have contributed to his case.

7. Mr Ferhedieh failed before the Tribunal because the Tribunal did not accept his claim to have converted to the Zoroastrian religion.  This was a finding of fact.  This Court is not entitled to form an opinion about such a matter in substitution for that of the Tribunal.

8. I have considered for myself whether the Tribunal’s decision discloses a ground of review specified in s 476. I do not think it does. I have no choice but to dismiss the application.

9. The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             5 July 2001

The Applicant appeared via video on his own behalf.
Counsel for the Respondent:	R L Hooker
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	4 July 2001