Qarehtath v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 1906
•3 JULY 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Qarehtath v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
QORBAN ALI BARZEGAR QAREHTATH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
W 79 of 2001
WILCOX J
3 JULY 2001
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY
W 79 of 2001
BETWEEN:
QORBAN ALI BARZEGAR QAREHTATH
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 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 79 of 2001
BETWEEN:
QORBAN ALI BARZEGAR QAREHTATH
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
WILCOX J
DATE:
3 JULY 2001
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILCOX J:
This is an application by Qorban Ali Barzegar Qarehtath for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refusing to grant a protection visa.
The applicant is a citizen of Iran. His case before the Tribunal was that he held a well-founded fear of persecution, if returned to Iran, because he is now a Christian.
Mr Qarehtath gave the Tribunal information about his conversion to Christianity, stemming from a sojourn in Cyprus between 1996 and 2000. Mr Qarehtath gave evidence about an incident that occurred not long after his return to Iran; and he talked about the way in which persons who converted from Islam to Christianity were regarded in Iran.
The Tribunal member obtained, and relied upon, information from a number of sources about Iranians who converted from Islam to Christianity, and also about the treatment of Iranians who were returned to Iran after seeking asylum in a foreign country.
Mr Qarehtath talked to me about the findings made by the Tribunal. He made clear to me that he regards them as inadequate. He said the Tribunal failed to pay any regard to some of the factual matters to which he referred. He also said he felt he was not able to say everything that he wished.
I do not accept the last claim. The Tribunal conducted a video hearing which followed the usual procedure of questions and answers. Contrary to what Mr Qarehtath said to me, it is apparent the Tribunal did not simply act on the basis that, if he was not a member of a particular church, then he could not make a claim based on Christian belief. The Tribunal’s reasons disclose questioning about Mr Qarehtath's knowledge and practice of Christianity, both in Iran and in Australia.
I explained to Mr Qarehtath, at the outset, that the powers of the Court are strictly limited. The Court has power to review decisions of the Tribunal only on the grounds set out in s 476 of the Act. Mr Qarehtath told me he understood this. However, no ground falling within that section was raised. It is clear that Mr Qarehtath does not accept the Tribunal’s factual findings but they are not matters I can review under s 476.
I am not satisfied that the Tribunal failed to provide a proper hearing. It is apparent, from the Tribunal’s reasons for decision, that the Tribunal member took care to understand what Mr Qarehtath was saying about his religious experiences, beliefs and practices. It is understandable that Mr Qarehtath is disappointed at the decision, but this does not mean the Tribunal failed to give him a proper hearing. As I say, it is not for me to decide whether the findings of fact are correct and I do not attempt to do so.
I expected Mr Qarehtath would not be legally represented today. For that reason, I considered the Tribunal’s decision, with some care, before coming into court. I was anxious to see whether the reasons appeared to disclose any ground of review by the Court. I do not think they do and, as I say, none has been identified by Mr Qarehtath.
Under the circumstances, I have no alternative other than to dismiss the application for review. The Minister seeks an order for costs, which is the usual order, and I think it is appropriate that the dismissal carry costs. Accordingly, the order that I make is that the application for review be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) 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: L A Tsaknis Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 3 July 2001
0
0
0