S1090 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1026

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1090 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2006] FCA 1026

MIGRATION – no point of principle

Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547

S1090 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 815 OF 2006

TRACEY J
8 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 815 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S1090 OF 2003
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the second respondent.

3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $3, 000.

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 WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 815 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S1090 OF 2003
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE:	8 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate handed down 11 April 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) of 1 July 1999:  see Applicant S1090/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 621. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse grant of a protection visa to the appellant.

2. The appellant is a citizen of India and is of Muslim religion.  Before the Tribunal the appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution for his political opinion and religion.  He claimed to have previously been a member of the Muslim League and that he was being persecuted by the Muslim League in order to prevent him from providing evidence about riots and murders in 1996, and because he refused to travel to Pakistan for training as a militant.  The appellant also claimed persecution by the police for his religion as a Muslim and his political opinion, and persecution by local Hindu shopkeepers who were part of the Hindu Nationalist movement and who were jealous of the appellant’s successful business. 

3. The Tribunal did not accept the appellant’s claims as credible. It found that the evidence regarding the Muslim League wanting to send the appellant to Pakistan appeared improbable, including his explanation that they wanted to send him there to silence him.  The Tribunal could find no country information as to the Muslim League having contact with ‘Pakistani underground agents’, which the appellant claimed that they had.  The Tribunal also found that the appellant’s material claims were not convincing and that some of those claims…