Taiem v MIMA

Case [2001] FCA 611

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Taiem v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 611

MIGRATION – judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal’s refusal of protection visa – applicant Palestinian refugee (grandson of fugitives from Palestine after 1948 hostilities) – born in Syria – twenty years old – eight years residence in Syria – then twelve years residence in Libya – assessed by Tribunal as having no nationality – whether a person may have more than one country of “former habitual residence” – whether applicant’s claims should have been assessed in relation to Libya as well as Syria – whether any error of law on Tribunal’s part.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(3), 476

Al-Anezi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 355 followed
Rishmawi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 77 FCR 421 followed

MOTAMAN TAIEM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 28 of 2001

CARR J
25 MAY 2001
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 28 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

MOTAMAN TAIEM
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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 28 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

MOTAMAN TAIEM
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

CARR J

DATE:

25 MAY 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 5 January 2001, by which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant, who claims to be a stateless Palestinian refugee, formerly resident in Syria and Libya, arrived in Australia on 17 August 2000.  He travelled on a false Spanish passport which, before arrival in Australia, he gave to the people smuggler who arranged his journey.  On 1 September 2000, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.  On 12 September 2000 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant him a protection visa.  On 13 September 2000, the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

    THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS AND THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

  2. The applicant’s claims to refugee status, in summary, were as follows:

    ·     He was born in 1980 in Syria into a family in which all of his grandparents had fled Palestine (now Israel) in 1948.  His father and mother were born in Syria.

    ·     The applicant lived in Syria until 1988 when his family moved to Libya where his father sought and obtained work.  A large number of Palestinian refugees from Syria did the same around that time.  His father’s residence permit in Libya…

Continue reading Taiem v MIMA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Taiem v MIMA [2001] FCA 611
Case
[2001] FCA 611
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taiem v MIMA, the applicant, a stateless Palestinian refugee who claims to have resided in Syria and Libya, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a delegate's refusal to grant him a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia on a false Spanish passport, made various claims to refugee status, including that he faced persecution in Libya due to his association with the Palestine Liberation Front and in Syria due to his illegal entry and alleged activities with the PLF. The Tribunal, however, found his claims to be lacking in credibility and detail, and affirmed the delegate's decision.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether it was open to the Tribunal to dismiss the applicant's claims. The court examined the applicant's evidence and the Tribunal's reasoning, considering whether the Tribunal had properly applied the relevant legal principles and whether its findings were supported by the evidence. The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law and that its findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review, holding that the Tribunal's decision was lawful and that the applicant's claims lacked credibility and detail. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The court found no merit in the applicant's arguments and confirmed the Tribunal's decision that the applicant was not entitled to a protection visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

CARR J
This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 5 January 2001, by which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, who claims to be a stateless Palestinian refugee, formerly resident in Syria and Libya, arrived in Australia on 17 August 2000. He travelled on a false Spanish passport which, before arrival in Australia, he gave to the people smuggler who arranged his journey. On 1 September 2000, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. On 12 September 2000 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant him a protection visa. On 13 September 2000, the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS AND THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION The applicant’s claims to refugee status, in summary, were as follows:· He was born in 1980 in Syria into a family in which all of his grandparents had fled Palestine (now Israel) in 1948. His father and mother were born in Syria.· The applicant lived in Syria until 1988 when his family moved to Libya where his father sought and obtained work. A large number of Palestinian refugees from Syria did the same around that time. His father’s residence permit in Libya allowed the family to stay in that country until 1994. In that year his parents and his older brother and younger sister were all apprehended by Libyan authorities and deported to Syria. · His father was associated with the Palestine Liberation Front (“the PLF”) and had been detained upon arrival in Syria, had been released after a week but then had either disappeared or ceased contact with the applicant, who remained in Libya.· The applicant moved into his uncle’s home in Libya when the rest of his family was deported. His uncle, also a member of the PLF, apprenticed him for the trade of a welder.· He became a welder in 1995 and worked at that trade until the time he left Libya in July 2000.· He is registered with the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”). [A copy of a certificate of registration (dated 5 November 2000) and the UNRWA registration card are in evidence. The registration card apparently serves as a travel document. His whole family is registered on that document]. · His mother retains the travel document in Syria where she currently resides with his older brother and younger sister.· The applicant claimed to be stateless although the abovementioned registration card indicates that his nationality is Palestinian. · The applicant claimed refugee status upon the basis of likely Convention-related persecution both in Libya and in Syria. His claims in relation to Libya were based on allegations that the PLF were pressing him to join its ranks and carry on his father’s and uncle’s work, which he had refused to do, with the result, so he claimed, that he would have been killed for such refusal had he stayed in Libya.· He could not return to Syria because what he described as “his mother’s travel document”, which included him, did not allow him to enter Iraq. He had contravened that restriction, when in 1992 his father and maternal uncle had sent him on a “mercy boat” to Iraq in the early stages of post-Gulf war sanctions. His maternal uncle was also on the boat. The boat arrived in Iraq, albeit empty of relief supplies because of raids off Yemen, and ultimately returned to Libya. The applicant claimed that he would be persecuted by Syrian authorities because of this illegal trip to Iraq.· The applicant introduced a new claim in a submission dated 6 November 2000 upon which he expanded at the hearing before the Tribunal. This was to the effect that reports about the applicant being an active member of the PLF had been sent to the Syrian authorities. He had learned this through a person called Mohamad who had resided in the same camp in Libya where the applicant lived for a time. Mohamad had gone from Libya to Syria in 1997 and been arrested there. While under duress, Mohamad had disclosed names of PLF activists, and had included the applicant’s name. The applicant had learned about this variously from a maternal uncle now resident in Holland, from news which had been made public at the camp in Libya on the day Mohamad had been arrested and from Mohamad himself who had been released and, having returned to the camp in Libya, had told everyone in the camp what he had done and advised them not to go to Syria. · The applicant produced a document which he described as a bulletin or telegraph sent by Syrian intelligence to all ports including airports in Syria, in response to the list of names provided by Mohamad, which warned officials with some urgency to be on guard for the applicant and to arrest him on sight. · At the hearing before the Tribunal on 7 November 2000, in response to a question about his family, the applicant introduced another new claim stating that his brother had been interrogated with torture in Syria in relation to his (the applicant’s) role with the PLF, but had then been released.· The applicant also mentioned to the Tribunal an episode when he was 8 years old, in which he had told a Syrian taxi driver that he supported Arafat and had subsequently been detained by Syrian security over night.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: CARR J

Full text does not contain this section.