Singh v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 505

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 505

JAGDEV SINGH v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
S 121 of 2000

FINN J
4 MAY 2001
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S121 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	JAGDEV SINGH APPLICANT
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S121 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	JAGDEV SINGH APPLICANT
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	4 MAY 2001
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This application by Jagdev Singh for an order for review under Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") is quite misconceived.

2. Mr Singh is an Indian national who, allegedly as a refugee, departed India in January 1992 for the Philippines.  He there acquired permanent residence status.  In April 1999 he travelled to Australia.  His application for a protection visa was made on 13 May 1999.  He seeks to avoid being returned either to India or to the Philippines on account of events that occurred to him in each country and which result in his claim to be a refugee from both.

3. His application for a protection visa was rejected by a delegate of the respondent Minister, the delegate finding that Mr Singh did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in India and that he could relocate within India.  The delegate went on to indicate that there was, in consequence, no need to make any findings in relation to Mr Singh's fears of persecution in the Philippines although the delegate went on to suggest that his Philippines claim was "implausible".

4. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") when considering Mr Singh's review application, affirmed the delegate's decision and in so doing it adopted a like approach to that of the delegate save that it did not consider at all whether Mr Singh faced persecution in the Philippines.  The Tribunal's consideration of Mr Singh's India claims resulted in its concluding both that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (ie the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees amended by the 1967 protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees) and that, if he had a subjective fear of persecution in the Punjab (where he previously resided), it would not be unreasonable for him to relocate elsewhere in India.

5. The principal challenge made to the Tribunal's decision related to its failure to make findings and to reach a conclusion on the Philippines claims.  It is said that this failure was itself an error of law (s 476(1)(2)) and, moreover, it involved a failure to observe a required procedure (s 476(1)(a)) ie to set out in…