Sahtot v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1911

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sahtot v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

KHALED SAHTOT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 21 of 2001

WILCOX J
5 JULY 2001
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 21 of 2001

BETWEEN:	KHALED SAHTOT APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 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 21 of 2001

BETWEEN:	KHALED SAHTOT APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	5 JULY 2001
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to grant to Mr Sahtot a protection visa. 

2. The Tribunal accepted that Mr Sahtot is a stateless Palestinian with rights of residence in Syria.  He was born in Syria and has lived there all his life, with the exception of a period spent in Libya, where his parents and other members of his family still reside.

3. Mr Sahtot told me, during the course of the hearing, that there has been contact with Palestinian representatives in Canberra.  He understands that Palestine is prepared to grant passports to himself and other stateless Palestinians who are being held in the detention centre.  I gather Mr Sahtot would prefer to be sent to Palestine, rather than back to Syria.  However, while I note this position, which seems good news from Mr Sahtot's point of view, it has no bearing on the decision I have to make. 

4. The question for me is whether there is any error, in the decision of the Tribunal, that is within the jurisdiction of the Court to correct.  As I mentioned to Mr Sahtot, the Court’s jurisdiction is very limited.  The Court only has power to intervene on a ground set out in s 476 of the Migration Act.  In particular, the Court does not have power to intervene on the basis that the Tribunal was wrong in its findings of fact.

5. Four points were raised by Mr Sahtot.  I will refer to each of them.  The first point was one of law, and therefore within the Court's jurisdiction to consider.  Mr Sahtot said that Australian law requires that protection be provided to people who have no country.  However, that is not correct.  There is no such requirement.  Australian law does provide for recognition of a person who is a refugee.  The term “refugee” is defined in the Convention on Refugees 1951.  That is an international Convention to which Australia is a party.  The definition is in these terms:

   “… a person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

6. It seems it is necessary to look at the last part of this definition in Mr Sahtot’s case.  As he is stateless, he is a person not having a nationality.  He is outside the country of his former habitual residence; that is, Syria.  So the question is whether he is unable to return to Syria or unwilling to return to Syria because of a well-founded fear of persecution.  That was the question the Tribunal had to consider.  The Tribunal member understood that, and he did consider that question.

7. The second matter stated by Mr Sahtot is that Syria is governed by the secret service.  There is no doubt about the repressive nature of the Syrian government.  The Tribunal member understood that point also.  The question is whether Mr Sahtot has a well-founded fear of persecution if he is returned to Syria.  The Tribunal member thought the best way to decide that was to look at what had happened to Mr Sahtot in the past.  The Tribunal did not accept that Mr Sahtot had been persecuted in the past, and did not accept that he faced a danger of persecution if he was returned to Syria.  The Tribunal gave reasons for this opinion.  The Court cannot interfere with the Tribunal’s view about those matters.

8. The third point of Mr Sahtot is that three people at the detention centre, who are Palestinians from Syria, have been granted visas to stay in Australia.  That may well be true, but that would be because the facts of their case were different.  It is necessary for the Tribunal to consider each case separately.  There may be different answers for different people because of different facts of their cases.

9. The fourth matter is that Mr Sahtot said the Tribunal refused to receive a document showing he was wanted by the authorities in Syria.  However, Mr Sahtot explained that he himself had not seen the document.  He was referring to a paper that he said was issued after he left Syria and is still in Syria.  He knows about it only because his brother told him.  If the document was in Australia at the time of the Tribunal hearing, I am sure the Tribunal would have considered the document.  However, it was not offered to the Tribunal.  I do not think it is possible to criticise the Tribunal for refusing a document which was not offered.

10. Before I came into Court, I carefully read the Tribunal's decision.  I was anxious to consider for myself whether it showed any error the Court could correct.  I did this because I expected Mr Sahtot would not have legal representation today.  I also realised that the case was important to him because he wishes to stay in Australia.  However, I cannot find any error that would attract the power of the Court. 

11. The reason why Mr Sahtot lost before the Tribunal was that the Tribunal did not accept his claims as to the facts.  As I have said, there is nothing I can do about that.  I have no choice but to dismiss the application for review.  The order that I make is that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox .

Associate:

Dated:             6 July 2001

The Applicant appeared via video on his own behalf.
Counsel for the Respondent:	L B Price
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	5 July 2001