Ramly v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 648

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ramly v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 648

AHMAD RAMLY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N296 of 2000

WILCOX J
SYDNEY
10 MAY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY	N296 of 2000

BETWEEN:	AHMAD RAMLY Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for review be dismissed.

2.The applicant, Ahmad Ramly, pay to the respondent, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, his 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
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY	N296 of 2000

BETWEEN:	AHMAD RAMLY Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	10 MAY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. WILCOX J:  This matter came before the Court for direction on 18 April last.  At that time, the applicant, Ahmad Ramly appeared in person.  He was assisted by an interpreter who was able to interpret between English and Arabic.  Mr Ramly asked me to fix the earliest available date because he was being held in detention, I fixed the matter for hearing this afternoon and emphasised to Mr Ramly that the matter would proceed then and he should obtain legal advice in preparation for today, if he was able to do so.

2. This afternoon Mr Ramly again appeared for himself; again assisted by an interpreter, although a different person.  Mr Ramly told me he had spoken to a solicitor who had agreed to take the case but was not able to give it any attention at this stage.  The solicitor is not present today.  I asked Mr Ramly whether he had a letter from the solicitor to indicate his identity and interest but Mr Ramly said he did not have this.

3. Mr Ramly said he would like the case to be adjourned until a later day but I declined this application.  I am not satisfied that an adjournment would result in Mr Ramly having legal assistance at the hearing.

4. At the directions hearing, I explained to Mr Ramly the limitations on this Court's jurisdiction.  I told him that, in substance, the Court could only review the decision of the Tribunal in relation to the Tribunal's determinations of legal questions and its compliance with the procedures laid down by the Migration Act 1958.  Today I asked Mr Ramly whether there were any submissions relating to legal error that he desired to put.  He mentioned a number of matters but none of them raises a question of law.

5. The submissions put by Mr Ramly come down to disputing the Tribunal's conclusions of fact.  These are not matters within the jurisdiction of the Court. 

6. Mr Ramly also asserted that he knew somebody else who was in the same position as himself and who had been given a protection visa last December.  I have no information about this other person, other than what Mr Ramly said. 

7. If the other person was truly in the same position as Mr Ramly, I can understand his feeling of upset that he has been treated in a different way.  However, the fact that somebody else's case has been determined more favourably does not mean that the member of the Tribunal who determined Mr Ramly's case made an error of law.  The explanation may simply be that different Tribunal members reached different conclusions about the situation in Kuwait.  I am not able to say which of them might have been correct but, in any event, that is a factual matter. 

8. Mr Ramly has not put to the Court any submission that falls within the Court's limited jurisdiction.

9. Before I came into Court today, I carefully read the decision of the Tribunal in Mr Ramly's case.  I realised that Mr Ramly may not have the benefit of legal representation today and I considered for myself whether the decision seemed to be affected by any error of law.  I could see no such error.  The Tribunal member accepted that there had, in the past, been serious discrimination in Kuwait against stateless persons, “Bedouns”.  He also accepted many of the claims made by Mr Ramly as to the way in which he had been treated in past years.

10. I think it is fair to say that, if the Tribunal member had believed that the situation still remained as it was in the past, he would have felt there was a real chance that Mr Ramly would be persecuted if he returned to Kuwait.  However, he took account of a considerable volume of country material that suggests the situation has changed for the better.  In particular, the member accepted that, if a stateless person made application for citizenship by June 2000 and was able to comply with certain criteria, then he would be likely to be given citizenship.

11. The Tribunal member considered the criteria and reached the conclusion that Mr Ramly could comply with all of them.  He therefore concluded that Mr Ramly had it in his power to obtain citizenship in Kuwait, if he returned to that country before June.  That being so, he concluded there was no real chance of discrimination on account of his statelessness.  I see no error of law or logic in this reasoning. 

12. Mr Ramly disputes that the Kuwaiti Government would be prepared to grant him citizenship if he returned and applied for it by June.  But this was a matter for the Tribunal to evaluate, not for me.  Mr Ramly also mentioned that he left Kuwait on a false passport and that he had previously been accused of collaborating with the Iraqis in the war in 1991.  For that reason he considers the offer of citizenship will not be extended to him. 

13. I understand his viewpoint, but these were matters that were put to the Tribunal and considered by it.  On the basis of information received by the Tribunal from agencies in Kuwait, the Tribunal concluded that matters such as this would not stand in the way of a grant of citizenship.  Once again, this is a conclusion of fact. 

14. I have been unable to detect any ground of review that falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.  Consequently, I have no option but to dismiss the application for review.

15. I would like to say, in parting with the case, that I have sympathy with Mr Ramly for the way in which he has been treated in the past; but the critical question for the Tribunal was the likely treatment in the future.  On the basis of the information which has come to Australia from agencies in Kuwait, it seems that Mr Ramly would be wise to put himself in the position of applying for citizenship before the deadline expires in June.  To do this, he would need to be in Kuwait when he made the application; but if he acts promptly, there would seem to be no difficulty about his getting back to Kuwait in time.  I suggest he give serious thought to doing this.

16. The order of the Court will be that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             10 May 2000

Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	10 May 2000
Date of Judgment:	10 May 2000