Pulvera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 944

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pulvera v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 944

CHRISTOPHER T PULVERA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 355 of 2001

MADGWICK J
6 JULY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N355 of 2001

BETWEEN:	CHRISTOPHER T PULVERA APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 JULY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application for review be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed by a Registrar of this Court.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N355 of 2001

BETWEEN:	CHRISTOPHER T PULVERA APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	6 JULY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), which affirmed a decision by a delegate of the respondent Minister, to refuse the applicant’s application for a protection visa. 

2. The application for an order of review raises some factual matters and then under “The grounds of the application” it continues:

   “Humanitarian - If I return I will be suffering persecution for being a brother of Israel Bryan.  I have nowhere to live.  I was just an ordinary citizen before the incident happened.  I know that I do not meet the refugee definition as defined by the Refugee Convention.  I am being discriminated as to the violation of human rights in my home country.”

3. The applicant claims in the application:

   “An order of declaration that my application to be categorised under ‘Global special humanitarian program’.”

4. The applicant is a citizen of the Philippines who arrived in Australia on 19 February 2000.  On 25 October 2000 he lodged his application for a protection visa.  The claim to fall within the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees arose out of his relationship with his brother who he said was a part time military intelligence officer between 1991 and 1999, and had been targeted by members of a powerful drug syndicate owned by business men and military officials.

5. The applicant’s account was that he had assisted his brother with information and consequently feared death at the hands of a drug syndicate if he returned.  He said that the protection of the state would not be available because of official corruption.  He suggested that in 1997 he had received threatening telephone calls and on another occasion both his brother and he had been threatened in the street with death.  The Tribunal disbelieved the applicant, but in any case, found that the delay between the threats against him and his departure from the Philippines in February 2000 indicated that the applicant had not left the Philippines because he was “generally in fear of his life for the reasons claimed”.

6. In the passage from the application that I have quoted, the applicant seems to have been disarmingly frank about the matter.  In any event, he has now indicated to the Court that he wishes, well knowing that he will be liable for an order of costs, to withdraw his application.  This is consented to. 

7. The application is withdrawn and dismissed.  The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed by a Registrar of this Court. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             19 July 2001

Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	R Beech-Jones
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	6 July 2001
Date of Judgment:	6 July 2001