Godman v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 331

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Godman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 331

MIGRATION – protection visas – application seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – where applicant has not set out any grounds of review

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476

GENESIS GODMAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 100 of 2001

STONE J
SYDNEY
21 MARCH 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 100 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GENESIS GODMAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed;

2.        the applicant 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	N 100 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GENESIS GODMAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	21 MARCH 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 8 November 2000, the applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, applied to the respondent (“Minister”) for a protection visa to remain in Australia. His application was refused by the Minister’s delegate (“Delegate”) on 14 November 2000. The Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) affirmed this decision on 23 January 2001. On 6 February 2001, Mr Godman applied to this Court under s 476 of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for review of the Tribunal’s decision.

2. Section 36 of the Act provides that a criterion for the grant of a protection visa is that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, as “amended” by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (compendiously, “the Convention”). Article 1A(2) of the Convention provides that a refugee is any person who:

   “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular 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; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

3. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s application for a protection visa, the record of his interview with an immigration inspector on his arrival to Australia, the oral evidence given by him at the Tribunal, the written submissions made on his behalf and a newspaper article submitted by him to the Tribunal. In its reasons for decision, the Tribunal set out his claims in detail. In essence, the applicant claimed that he would be persecuted because of his religion, being Christian, and his ethnicity, being Agbor, as well as because he had impregnated the daughter of a Muslim Emir. In relation to the latter claim, he feared reprisal through sharia law and at the at the hands of Muslim militants. He gave extensive details of his attempts to hide from and flee Muslim militants.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not “a witness of truth”. It stated that “[h]is story is implausible in the extreme and is not supported – indeed, it is contradicted – by independent evidence”. It illustrated the implausibility of the applicant’s story, for example, the unlikely circumstances in which he claimed he met the Emir’s daughter. It also referred to inconsistencies in the applicant’s story; for example, in relation to his evidence concerning his university studies, the applicant had named the university he had claimed to attend by its pre-existing name and had, in his evidence, confused it with a different university.

5. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim that he would be persecuted under sharia law, citing independent evidence that there was no sharia law in Kaduna and that, in those areas where sharia law does exist, it does not apply to Christians.

6. In relation to the applicant’s claim that he would be harmed by Muslim militants seeking to avenge the Emir’s daughter, the Tribunal noted that such ‘persecution’ (if any) would not be for a Convention reason. In any event, the Tribunal went on to consider the newspaper article, headed “Muslims Militants Declares Genesis Godman as a Wanted Person”,  submitted by the applicant to support this claim. The Tribunal stated that, having examined the newspaper, it was of the view that the article had been fraudulently inserted. It based its conclusion on the fact that the content, style, poor spelling, bad grammar, font, size, colouring and formatting differed from other articles contained in the newspaper.

7. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim that he had a well founded fear of persecution because of his ethnicity, referring to independent evidence that there was no ethnic group or language known as ‘Agbor’ in Nigeria.

8. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of whether the applicant had a well founded fear of persecution because of his Christian religion. The applicant had not made any specific claims in relation to such persecution, other than his claim that he feared persecution resulting from his liaison with the Emir’s daughter. However, in light of the applicant’s evidence that his parents had been killed in a church in January 2000, the Tribunal dealt with the issue. The Tribunal did not believe the applicant’s story as to his parents’ fate. In reaching this conclusion, it cited independent evidence to the effect that sectarian violence in Kaduna, during which many Christians were killed, first commenced in the week beginning 21 February 2000. It also noted other aspects of the applicant’s story that were implausible, such as the absence of any action by authorities, including the Christian Association of Nigeria, following his parents’ death and the failure of the applicant to explain satisfactorily how he knew that his parents were dead. The Tribunal determined that the applicant did not have a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of his Christianity. It observed that freedom of worship is guaranteed by the Nigerian constitution and that, even if the applicant’s parents had faced persecution in Kaduna, the applicant did not live there but rather in the south of Nigeria, where the majority of the population is Christian.

9. Towards the end of its reasons, the Tribunal summarised its findings as follows:

   “In short, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s story has been fabricated since arriving in this country. It is satisfied that he is not a credible witness, as has been demonstrated above. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has not suffered harm, let alone harm amounting to persecution, in the past for a Convention reason; and that there is no real chance that such harm will befall him in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Nigeria. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. He is not a refugee.”

10. The application for an order of review filed by the applicant on 6 February 2001 contains no details of any grounds of review and does not set out any orders which are sought. At the hearing today, the applicant declined to put any submissions to the court.  Mr Jordan, counsel for the respondent, relied on his written submissions. Those submissions stated that there was no ground of review and that the Tribunal’s decision was based on its finding that the applicant had fabricated his claims. That finding was entirely open to the Tribunal on the material before it. I agree with the respondent’s submission. The applicant has not pointed to and, having reviewed the materials, I have been unable to find any reviewable error.

11. For the above reasons, the application is dismissed and the applicant will pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.

Associate:

Dated:             29 March 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr D Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	21 March 2001
Date of Judgment:	21 March 2001