Mofrad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1856

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mofrad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1856

FARHAD JAZAYERI MOFRAD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W393 of 2001

CARR J
19 DECEMBER 2001
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W393 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	FARHAD JAZAYERI MOFRAD Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W393 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	FARHAD JAZAYERI MOFRAD Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE:	19 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 17 August 2001, by which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  The applicant who is a citizen of Iran, arrived in Australia in October 2000.  On 6 March 2001 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). On 31 May 2001 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant a protection visa and on 1 June 2001 the applicant applied for review of that decision.

   THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS AND THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

2. The applicant’s claims, in summary, were as follows:

   ·     He was 25 years of age, Arabic, single and a Sabean Mandean.  He also claimed to be a Muslim.

   ·     He undertook secondary education in Iran and worked there mostly in his own or his family-run business as an importer.

   ·     He was denied work in the public sector due to his Arab ethnicity.

   ·     Although he is a Muslim, he has encountered ridicule due to his mother’s adherence to the Sabbi faith.

   ·     In 1991 he was accused of assault, but that matter was now closed. 

   ·     In 1992 he was accused of hijacking an aeroplane; the incident was one of mistaken identity.

   ·     His main problems began in mid 1999 after he had attended a rally in support of student protesters seeking political liberalisation.  He was detained for ten days until his father provided a surety.

   ·     From about 1994 he supported the Mujahadeen, as he hated the clergy, especially after the execution of a friend’s relative.

   ·     During his period of military service a friend offered him the opportunity of supporting the Mujahadeen.  He supported the Mujahadeen because it was antagonistic to the ruling regime and was intent on helping people in poverty and eliminating class distinctions. 

   ·     He distributed newspapers and pamphlets for the Mujahadeen; the material was brought to him, he photocopied it and then threw it on to neighbours’ properties after dark.

   ·     In 1999 the authorities intercepted a vehicle in which written material and satellite rceivers were being transported for the Mujahadeen.  The driver gave his name to the authorities.

   ·     He was later arrested while on the street, blindfolded and taken to a prison where he was detained, interrogated and seriously mistreated for 15 days.

   ·     Some operatives within the Mujahadeen bribed a prison officer for information, then manufactured a traffic accident with the vehicle which was taking him to the Revolutionary Court.  This enabled him to escape.

   ·     His father, brother and sister changed their family name after he became involved with the Mujahadeen.

   ·     In 1996 he was issued with a passport which he used for a short trip to Dubai on business in November 1999.

   ·     He destroyed that passport just before leaving for Australia, so he would not be detected.

   ·     He left Iran on a false passport issued in the name of another person, but bearing his own photograph.  The false passport was provided by a people smuggler who used his influence to enable the applicant to depart from the airport in Shiraz.

   ·     There were no passport or customs checks when he left Iran.

   ·     A photocopy of his identity card was found by another passenger en route to Australia and then handed to him for the remainder of the journey.

   ·     His father was arrested on summons in November 2000, taken to Court, detained and tortured and again sent a summons after his initial release.

   ·     There are numerous abuses of human rights in Iran and he is bound to be persecuted if returned there, including because of his application for asylum. 

3. I shall not attempt to summarise the Tribunal’s discussion of the evidence and its findings.  I set them out below.  Where I have omitted country information, I have indicated this.  I have added numbers to the paragraphs to facilitate the references which I make later in these reasons.

   “DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

   1.  The issue of when discriminatory treatment amounts to persecution has been canvassed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status January 1992. It is noted in the Handbook that:

   "54. Differences in the treatment of various groups do indeed exist to a greater or lesser in many societies.  Persons who receive less favourable treatment as a result of such differences are not necessarily victims of persecution. It is only in certain circumstances that discrimination will amount to persecution. This would be so if measures of discrimination lead to consequences of a substantially prejudicial nature for the person concerned, e.g. serious restrictions on his right to earn his livelihood, his right to practise his religion, or his access to normally available educational facilities.

   55. Where measures of discrimination are, in themselves, not of a serious character, they may nevertheless give rise to a reasonable fear of persecution if they produce, in the mind of the person concerned, a feeling of apprehension and insecurity as regards his future existence. Whether or not such measures of discrimination in themselves amount to persecution must be determined in the light of all the circumstances. A claim to fear of persecution will of course be stronger where a person has been the victim of a number of discriminatory measures of this type and where there is thus a cumulative element involved. (p.15)

   2.  In Chan’s case at 431, McHugh J. comments that:

   " ...the denial of access to employment to the professions and to education or the imposition of restrictions on the freedoms traditionally guaranteed in a democratic society such as freedom of speech, assembly, worship or movement may constitute persecution if imposed for a Convention reason."

   3.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant had a secondary school education and later had remunerative employment. It is unable to find any evidence in the United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices or in any other material before it of any serious discrimination against Arabs in Iran. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Report, March 1996, states that Arabs enjoy political and social rights equal to the Persian majority.

   4.  In weighing the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was altogether denied work in the public sector by reason of his race or for any other Convention reason. In any event, he is clearly able to obtain remunerative employment on the private sector. The Tribunal concludes that the applicant has not, and does not in the foreseeable future, face a real chance of consequences amounting to persecution by reason of his Arabic background.

   5.  While accepting that the applicant encountered occasional ridicule from some people among those who knew of his mother's Sabbi religious faith, there is no evidence that he faced consequences amounting to persecution rather than discrimination by reason of his own religion or that imputed to him due to his mother's religious identification.

   6.  In relation to the accusation of assault in 1991 the Tribunal gives weight to the applicant's evidence at the hearing that the case against him is now closed. Even if it were not closed no Convention ground is disclosed. The Tribunal concludes that any accusation of assault made against the applicant a decade ago does not indicate a real chance of persecution of him now or in the foreseeable future for any Convention reason.

   7.  Similarly, the applicant's evidence at the hearing in relation to an accusation that he hijacked an aeroplane in 1992 was that he was cleared by the authorities when initial confusion about his identity was removed. The matter is essentially criminal in nature, even if motivated by political reasons. In the present case the matter was, in any event, resolved almost a decade ago. It does not indicate a real chance of persecution of the applicant now or in the foreseeable future for any Convention ground, and the Tribunal finds accordingly.

   8.  In relation to the applicant's claim that he was detained for 10 days as a consequence of involvement in a political rally in mid-1999 the Tribunal notes DFAT's country information report 345/99 of 22 September 1999:
   [country information imitted]

   9.  Most of those who were arrested in aforementioned demonstrations were quickly released. The interest of the authorities in demonstrators who escaped initial arrest was apparently confined to those with a high profile. Even on his own claims the applicant does not have the profile of a leader or organiser. He was not charged or convicted of any offence. Even if he was detained as he now claims he was released without charge. And even if his claims in that regard are, in fact, true, aforementioned information indicates the implausibility of him being pursued or persecuted nowadays as a consequence of involvement in a political rally two years ago.

   10.  The capacity of the applicant to leave for Dubai in November 1999 on his own passport further indicates that if he had formerly been of any interest to the authorities he was not wanted by then. The Tribunal notes and gives weight to commentary from DFAT in its country information report 327/99 of 19 March 1999. DFAT remarks in relation to exit procedures in Iran and with reference to its Country Profile (op. cit.) that:
   [country information omitted].

   11.  In relation to the applicant's claim that he later left Iran on a false passport the Tribunal notes that he has not retained that passport to verify the claim. The applicant had his own passport issued in 1996. It remained valid at the time of his departure for Australia. It is implausible that he would have destroyed that passport just before leaving Iran to avoid detection and yet not destroy other documentation such as his ID card that was, according to the applicant fortuitously found by another passenger during their journey to Australia

   12.  Aforementioned information regarding exit procedures indicates the existence of an extensive and computerized blacklist at the airport where persons intending to depart the country must pass a number of different checks.

   13.  In view of the tight controls in Iran on exit and entry procedures; the range of checks at airports; the existence of a computerized blacklist; and the interest of the authorities in monitoring Iranian citizens, including in particular those who are regarded as political offenders, the Tribunal finds it implausible that the applicant would have been able to pass through all airport checks if he was wanted by the authorities in relation to any political offence. In light of aforementioned information the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was able to pass through all official channels and depart Iran undetected due to the influence of a people smuggler. The applicant's claim that there were no passport or customs checks when he left Iran for Australia, through a major airport, is so entirely at odds with available information that the Tribunal does not find it credible.

   14.  Even if the applicant were subsequently found to have departed Iran illegally any resultant penalty would be in accordance with the criminal or civil code according to laws of general application. For reasons outlined elsewhere in this decision the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is of any interest to the authorities by reason of his political opinion or that imputed to him, or for any other Convention reason. His capacity to pass all checks and then depart Iran underscores such a finding.

   15.  On the question of the applicant's support of the Mujahadeen the Tribunal notes that the applicant made no claim of any political involvement in the initial stages of his application for a protection visa. It notes that he said at the outset he had "no association or involvement with any political organization”. He told the Tribunal he did not make any such claim in a timely way as he was in detention without legal representation. In his Departmental interview he attributed his failure in the initial stages of his application to mention the political association - that has since emerged as the central plank of his claims - to different factors.

   16.  In relation to the applicant's claim of association with the Mujahadeen the Tribunal notes and gives weight to the following material. The applicant was vague about the policies and aims of the Mujahadeen. His evidence indicates that he began to support the Mujahadeen on very limited information provided by a friend and while the applicant served in the armed forces that was diametrically opposed to the Mujahadeen and whose forces were, indeed, targets for murder by the Mujahadeen (see below). If the applicant hated the clergy as he claims it is not at all apparent why he would have thrown his support behind an organization intent on overturning the regime by force rather than align himself with liberal forces, for example. His decision to join the Mujahadeen is even more curious considering that it relies on violence to achieve its political aims, yet the applicant told the Tribunal that he is opposed to armed struggle for such ends. His claim that the Mujahadeen only kills murderers and the like is demonstrably false.

   17.  A report of the Reuters News Service of 24 May 2001 states, for example, that

   "The Mujahideen have intensified attacks on targets inside Iran ahead of the presidential election on June 8.

   In a statement sent to Reuters in Dubai earlier, the group said its forces had killed or wounded dozens of government troops in heavy clashes in the western province of Ilam on Thursday. It said two of its fighters were also killed. Khatami said his reform programme, launched after his landslide election in 1997, had "frustrated the terrorists". "These terrorists reject this great popular (reform) movement. It has frustrated their plans," he said.

   The Mujahideen say they have carried out more than 70 attacks inside Iran in the past three months, but few of them could be independently verified and some turned out to be minor operations.

   Iran last month launched dozens of missiles at Mujahideen bases inside Iraq and threatened more attacks unless the rebels stopped military operations against Tehran.”

   18.  The proposition that the Mujahadeen relies heavily, within Iran, on written propaganda such as that delivered to the applicant for distribution in his neighbourhood is unsupported by any independent information as to the actual strategy of the organization.

   19.  The DFAT Country Profile, March 1996, remarks that

   "By and large, the MKO is not currently very active in Iran. Their current leader in exile in Paris is Maryam Rajavi, wife of Masood Rajavi. The MKO operate out of both Iraq and France. The MKO has declined in importance in recent years, retaining a limited but not much used capacity. The MKO continues to draw the bulk of its support from the Iranian exile community. There is not much support among the population for the MKO, and hatred for it in some quarters. The MKO is viewed by most ordinary Iranians as a worse alternative than the incumbent regime. Even those who receive unsolicited literature by post from the MKO can face problems with the authorities, who would suspect them of holding MKO sympathies.” 

   20.  Given the necessary secrecy of the Mujahadeen it is highly dubious that a driver transporting Mujahadeen literature would first be identifiable as a member of that organization and that he would also know the actual name of the applicant and, by inference, all others to whom such literature was delivered. In light of the longstanding enmity between the authorities and the Mujahadeen and the general implausibility of the applicant's story the Tribunal does not accept that he was able to escape, in a public area, as a result of a contrived traffic accident after a bribe was paid by Mujahadeen operatives to enlist the cooperation of sufficient people to enable the escape. The applicant was not only able to run away, but was later able to depart the country despite being wanted for a serious anti-State matter.

   21.  In weighing all the material canvassed in the paragraph above, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant's story of involvement with the Mujahadeen is a fabrication. It finds that the applicant was not associated with that organization nor wanted by the authorities for any actual or perceived political involvement with it.

   22.  It follows from the Tribunal's findings immediately above that the Tribunal rejects the applicant's claims that family members changed their name due to his alleged connection with the Mujahadeen. It is implausible in any case that he and family members would avoid detection by changing their name after the applicant had joined an organization that relies on secrecy and while they still lived at the same address where the authorities could locate them if they had any wish to do so. Moreover, the ID card submitted by the applicant clearly records his former name as well as his current one. It is manifest that the authorities were able to know the actual identity of the applicant if they had any interest in doing so. While accepting that the applicant and some other family members changed their names the Tribunal does not accept that they were motivated to do so as a consequence of any involvement with the Mujahadeen, or otherwise to avoid persecution for any Convention reason.

   23.  In support of his claim that he, and his father in his absence, have been pursued by the Iranian authorities the applicant has submitted a photocopy of a letter of 15 April 2001, purportedly from his mother, along with an unofficial translation. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied that the letter actually emanates from the applicant's mother. In assessing its content the Tribunal finds that it is contrived and self-serving. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the letter is genuine and reiterates its finding that, for reasons outlined above, the applicant was not involved with the Mujahadeen or suspected of such involvement.

   24.  A photocopy of a document purporting to be a summons or arrest warrant for the applicant's father has also been submitted. It is accompanied by a letter from the applicant dated 29 March 2001 claiming that his father has been summonsed and arrested in order to force him to return to Iran. Following the hearing the applicant also submitted a translation of a summons bearing a date of service of 24 November 2001. It states that the applicant's father should be at the court "within the time limit [3 days after the date of service] stated on this Notice. Should you fail to do so you will be arrested?". In view of the vagueness of the wording, the absence of any actual charge and the timing of its submission the Tribunal is not satisfied that the document is genuine. In considering the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the documentation submitted by the applicant in relation to his father's alleged detention or threat of it is genuine. In light of its earlier finding that the applicant is not associated with the Mujahadeen or wanted by the authorities the Tribunal does not accept, in any event, that any official interest in the applicant's father arose out of any interest in the applicant himself for any Convention reason.

   25.  While accepting that the applicant's father has died since the applicant departed Iran the Tribunal does not accept that he was pursued or harassed or otherwise mistreated by the authorities due to any political activity undertaken or thought to be undertaken by the applicant himself such that it indicates a real chance of persecution of the applicant himself for any Convention reason.

   26.  As well, while accepting the submission in a letter of 6 July 2001 from the chairperson of the Iranian Community Organization in New South Wales that political dissidents associated with the Mujahadeen face very serious consequences if apprehended the Tribunal has recorded above its reasons for determining that the applicant is not such a person. It notes that the writer of the aforementioned letter has no independent knowledge of the applicant's situation.

   27.  The applicant has also submitted a document dated 17 June 2001, purportedly a summons for him to appear in court. It states that the applicant has an outstanding, but unspecified case against him and exhorts him to "Please come to the court at the above mentioned date [3 days after the date of service] for certain explanations. If you fail to arrive, you will be arrested." The document is issued almost a year after the applicant allegedly escaped from custody. On his evidence he was already arrested and is s fugitive. The document asks the applicant to attend court after the date that an alleged summons has already been issued to the applicant's father because the applicant has not been found. It seems incongruous that the authorities would issue no summons for the applicant himself before pursuing his father in lieu of him and then later issue a summons for the applicant himself. The document contains no specific charge and highly unusual language for such a document and in relation to a person allegedly wanted for serious anti-State activity. In weighing the evidence before it the Tribunal finds that the document is not genuine. For reasons outlined above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any official interest in the applicant is attributable to any political involvement by him or to any other Convention ground.

   28.  On the question of the consequences for Iranians if their applications for asylum should become known to the authorities in Iran the Tribunal notes and gives weight to information contained in the DFAT report of March 1996 (op. cit.) to the effect that:

   "... The act of applying for asylum abroad is not, in itself, an offence in Iran. However, if an asylum seeker departed Iran illegally and/or was a fugitive from justice, it is not uncommon for close family members to be questioned by the authorities and in some cases for harassment to occur. At worst, knowledge that an individual has sought political asylum abroad would not result in much more than verbal harassment, unless the asylum-seeker concerned had a high opposition political profile..."

   29.  In light of that information and considering the applicant's implausible claims of a political profile the Tribunal concludes that if the Iranian authorities were to learn of his (confidential) application for asylum he would not face persecution as a consequence. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant departed Iran illegally; but if he were to have done so any penalty that might arise would not in the circumstances of this case disclose a Convention nexus.

   30.  The Tribunal has considered an array of country information submitted by the applicant. While accepting that there are abuses of human rights in Iran and that some political activists remain at risk of persecution the Tribunal finds, for reasons canvassed above, that the applicant is not such a person.

   31.  In considering all the circumstances of this case, including cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason.”

   GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION

1. I set out below thew relevant parts of the application, exactly as they appear in that document:

   “I aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision because the Tribunal didn’t believe my claim.

   The Tribunal decision must be set aside.  I’ve got very danger situation in Iran”.

   MY REASONING

2. The applicant was not legally represented at the hearing before me today.  He made oral submissions most of which were either of a factual nature or went to the merits of the Tribunal’s decision, or both.  Accordingly to the extent that the applicant’s submissions fell into those categories they went beyond matters which this Court has jurisdiction to review.

3. The applicant also forwarded to the Court some written submissions.  They raised four matters.

4. The first related to the Tribunal’s observations (in paragraph numbered 11 of its reasons) in relation to the applicant’s passport. The applicant sought to put into evidence a copy of a Saudi Arabian passport which he said had been given to him by the people smuggler. A coloured photocopy of parts of that document accompanied the applicant’s submissions. That document was not in evidence before the Tribunal. The applicant told me that he had informed the Tribunal of its existence and had offered to obtain it for production to the Tribunal, but that the Tribunal had told him that that was not necessary. He had later retrieved it from a friend. The respondent objected to the tender of that document. In my view, it is inadmissible because it is not relevant to any of the issues which I have to decide in this case. Even if the applicant had advanced a “no evidence” ground of review under s 476(1)(g) of the Act, in my opinion, the document does not establish the non-existence of a particular fact upon which the Tribunal based its decision.

5. While dealing with matters of evidence, I should record that I accepted the first three pages of the applicant’s fax as being submissions.  I also accepted as being before the Court by way of evidence, all of the other documents accompanying that fax other than the document referred to immediately above and another document objected to by the respondent, namely a copy letter dated 30 October 2001 from “Iranian Community Organisation” which post-dated the Tribunal’s decision and which also did not, in my view, contain any matter relevant to the issues to be decided in this case.

6. The next matter related to two summonses which the applicant had produced to the Tribunal.  The applicant referred to the Tribunal’s comments (at paragraph numbered 24 of its reasons) in relation to the summons which it described as bearing the date 24 November 2001.  I note, in passing, that this is an obvious typographical error within the Tribunal since its reasons were delivered on 17 August 2001.  The applicant makes the point that the summons on its face shows that it was served on 24 November 2000.  I note also at p 7 of its reasons that the Tribunal referred to that summons by its correct date. 

7. The applicant’s complaint was that the Tribunal, so he submitted, had not considered the fact that there were two summons, namely, that issued to him on 24 November 2000 and a second summons issued to his father on 17 June 2001.  It had also confused the summons issued to him with that issued to his father.  It is apparent that the Tribunal was led into this error by a letter dated 29 March 2001 which the applicant caused to be sent to his solicitors and which his solicitors submitted to the Tribunal.  In that letter the applicant stated that his father had been summoned on 23 or 24 November 2000 and referred to the fact that a copy of the summons had already been provided.  It would appear that someone other than the applicant prepared that letter for him. 

8. It can be seen from paragraphs numbered 24 and 27 that, (putting aside the wrong date in the fifth line of paragraph numbered 24) that the Tribunal has confused the summons addressed to the applicant with that which was addressed to his father.  Accordingly, it has made factual errors in those two paragraphs.

9. However, in my view, those errors do not amount to reviewable errors, either of law or jurisdiction.  That is because the Tribunal had earlier found that the applicant was not associated with the Mujahadeen or was wanted by the authorities or that the authorities had any official interest in the applicant’s father arising out of any interest in the applicant himself for any Convention reason – see paragraphs numbered 21 and 22 and the last sentences in each of paragraphs numbered 24 and 28. 

10. The third point raised in the applicant’s written submissions to the Court related to the letter allegedly from the applicant’s mother (see paragraph numbered 23 of its reasons).  The Tribunal assessed the content of the letter as being “contrived and self-serving”.  It was not satisfied that the letter emanated from the applicant’s mother and it was not satisfied that the letter was genuine.  The applicant, in his written submissions, seemed to be concerned by the Tribunal’s reference, in paragraph numbered 23, to the fact that the translation was an unofficial translation.  He submitted that he could not obtain an official translation because of his involvement with the Mujahadeen as reflected in the contents of that letter. 

11. In my view, there is nothing in the Tribunal’s reasons to indicate that it attached any significance to the fact that the translation was not an official one.  That was not given as one of the reasons why the Tribunal rejected the letter.

12. In the fourth point raised by the applicant in his written submissions he repeated his assertion that the Tribunal did not consider the summons to his father, the fact that his father had been arrested, tortured and, finally, that his death was because of the applicant’s involvement with the Mujahadeen.  I have discussed earlier the matter of the summons to the father.  It is clear that the Tribunal did consider the other matters which the applicant raises in his fourth point – see paragraph numbered 25 of the Tribunal’s reasons. 

13. I have scrutinised the papers and the Tribunal’s reasons to see whether there was reviewable error. 

14. In the first part of its reasons the Tribunal set out the relevant law correctly and, in my view, there is nothing later in its reasons to suggest that it did not apply the law as earlier recited. 

15. The essential basis for the Tribunal’s decision was simply that it did not believe the applicant.  This can be seen in paragraphs numbered 13, 20 and 21 of its reasons.

16. In relation to the applicant’s claims based upon political activities and race, the Tribunal gave its reasons why it did not accept those claims and, where it disbelieved the applicant, why it did so.  Whether or not those were cogent reasons, is not a matter for this Court. 

17. The Tribunal also disbelieved the applicant’s evidence in relation to his departure from Iran and, in my view, it was entitled to do so on the evidence before it. 

18. In my opinion, the Tribunal’s conclusion that it was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees’ Convention was open to it on the material before it. 

19. In my view, the Tribunal made no reviewable error whether error of law or jurisdictional error. 

20. As no jurisdictional error, error of law or any other reviewable error has been disclosed, the application will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of Justice Carr.

A/g Associate:

Dated:             19 December 2001

The Applicant appeared in person:
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R L Hooker
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	19 December 2001
Date of Judgment:	19 December 2001