MZWIF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1701

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWIF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1701

MIGRATION – no question of principle – appeal dismissed

SHJB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 303, applied
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264, applied
MZWMQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1263, followed
MZWQE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1364, followed
SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] 215 ALR 162, referred to

MZWIF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

VID 493 OF 2005

MARSHALL J
24 NOVEMBER 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 493 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZWIF
APPELLANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellants pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 493 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MZWIF
APPELLANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	24 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellants are citizens of India. They are husband, wife and child. They applied to the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for protection visas to enable them to remain in Australia. They claim that they have a well founded fear of persecution on account of their religion, if they return to India. They are Catholics who claim to fear persecution from Hindu and Muslim extremists.

2. A delegate of the Minister rejected the applications for protection visas. The appellants sought a merits review of that decision in the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.

3. The Tribunal did not accept that the appellants were at risk of persecutory treatment at the hands of Muslims when they left their home in Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal found that some localised tensions of an insignificant nature occurred in Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal was satisfied that if the appellants returned to their home area they would not be subjected to persecutory treatment by Muslims because of their religion.

4. After noting that the appellants had not been targeted by Hindus before leaving India, the Tribunal considered whether they would be at risk of attack from Hindu extremists if they returned to Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal found that, in Andhra Pradesh, Hindu extremists did not harass Christians in a serious manner. It noted that the Christians, perceived by Hindu extremists to be evangelists, would…