Rajo, Abdul Hamid v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1998] FCA 1603

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG1102 of 1998

BETWEEN:	ABDUL HAMID RAJO APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	9 DECEMBER 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J: This is an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal rejecting a claim for a protection visa by Abdul Hamid Rajo.  The application for review is in my opinion quite hopeless. 

The case the applicant put before the Tribunal was that he was in fear of persecution, if returned to his native Syria, because he would be targeted by members of a clan different from his own clan.  The reason he would be targeted, according to his application for the visa, was that he had had “a love relationship” with a young woman in the other clan.  When he was questioned about this claim by the Tribunal member, and how it came about that he had a sufficient association with the woman to develop a love relationship, he denied he had a love relationship.  Indeed, he went on to say he had never even spoken to the woman, although he knew of her.  He suggested that a rumour had falsely suggested he had had a love relationship.

The Tribunal member pointed out to the applicant that, in his application, he himself had referred to his having a love relationship with the woman.  The applicant had recognised and confirmed the contents of the application at the beginning of the hearing.  The applicant then disowned the application, but when his signature was pointed out to him he finally admitted it was his application.

The Tribunal member was not impressed by this conduct and ultimately determined he could not accept the applicant’s evidence.  He said he took into account, also, the fact that the applicant had been in Australia for three years before applying for refugee status and had only done so when threatened with imminent deportation.

The Tribunal member also referred to the fact that, in the documents, there was no reference to any religious difference between the two clans, or any suggestion of persecution on a religious basis; however, during the course of the applicant’s evidence he said he was a member of the Sunni branch of Islam whereas the woman belonged to the Shia branch.  The Tribunal member thought it was surprising that this was mentioned for the first time only during the hearing of the application, if religion was a factor in the applicant’s fear of persecution.  He commented in his reasons that religion had been mentioned in the preceding case, involving an applicant who was apparently a friend of the present applicant and with whom the present applicant had been seen conversing immediately before his own case was heard.

Mr Mitry, on behalf of the applicant, put to me that the Tribunal erred in inferring that the applicant had been inspired to talk about religion by what had happened in the previous case.  I think this was a matter for the Tribunal to assess.  The Tribunal member sat through both hearings and saw what went on in the interlude between them.  In any event, it seems to me this was a minor part of the Tribunal member’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s story.  The Tribunal member determined he could not believe the applicant. 

Mr Mitry also submitted that the Tribunal member erred in failing to consider whether the applicant was likely to face the possibility of persecution because he was member of a particular social group, namely, his clan.  The difficulty with this submission is that it was not the case the applicant put to the Tribunal, either in its first or amended form.  At all times his case was that he would be targeted because of his relationship, or supposed relationship, with the young woman.  In other words, he would be targeted as an individual for something he was supposed to have done as an individual.

It follows that, even if the applicant’s story had been believed, he would not have brought himself within the definition of refugee in the Convention.  As his story was not believed, the member did not have to consider that matter. 

As I said earlier, this case is totally hopeless.  I dismiss the application  with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox

Associate:

Dated:             9 December 1998

Counsel for the Applicant:	R Mitry
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Westside Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	9 December 1998
Date of Judgment:	9 December 1998