SKFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SKFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2004] FCAFC 142

SKFB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

S 1 of 2004

BRANSON, FINN & FINKELSTEIN JJ
MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)
25 MAY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 1 of 2004

On Appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:	SKFB, SKGB & SKHB Appellants
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGES:	BRANSON, FINN & FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	25 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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	S 1 of 2004

On Appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:	SKFB, SKGB & SKHB Appellants
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGES:	BRANSON, FINN & FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	25 MAY 2004
PLACE:	MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The first appellant is an ethnic Indian and citizen of Fiji.  He and his family (his wife and 22 year old son, the second and third appellants respectively) arrived in Australia on 22 December 2001; the year following the armed nationalist revolution where insurgents stormed parliament and seized control of Fiji after the election of Fiji’s first ethnically Indian Prime Minister.  There has been longstanding tension between indigenous Fijians and Indo - Fijians.  The appellant (it will be convenient to refer to the first appellant in this way as he is the only appellant who challenges the tribunal’s decision) claims to be a victim of the animosity that indigenous Fijians bear against those of Indian ethnicity.  The nature of the mistreatment he says he suffered will be explained in a moment. 

2. On 15 January 2002 the appellant applied for a protection visa claiming to be a Convention refugee.  A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa.  The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.  An application for review of the tribunal’s decision to a single judge was unsuccessful; the judge found no error of law in the tribunal’s reasons.  The appellant now appeals from that decision.

3. Before dealing with the legal issues raised by this appeal we should set out the case the appellant put to the tribunal and explain why the tribunal rejected his claim.  The appellant said that he was a sugar cane farmer in the Nasedi area of the Ba Province.  He conducted his farming operations on land leased from indigenous Fijians.  The appellant said that he had been subject to threats from the owners of the farm who forced him off the land in August 2000.  Upon leaving the farm, the indigenous owners continued to make threats against him and stole property from his new home.  The appellant explained that although he was no…