WACU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 1030
•26 SEPTEMBER 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WACU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 1030MIGRATION – judicial review – protection visa – Iranian national – Refugee Review Tribunal – judicial review application dismissed by federal magistrate – new matters raised on appeal – whether jurisdictional error exposed – alleged failure by Tribunal to consider particular claims – rejection of claims subsumed in findings as to credibility and wider findings – no requirement for Tribunal to expressly advert to every matter raised by appellant – appeal dismissed.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 424A, s 474
Plaintiff S157/2000 v The Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 cited
WACU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
W 241 OF 2002FRENCH J
26 SEPTEMBER 2003
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
W241 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
WACU
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 SEPTEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
W241 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
WACU
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
FRENCH J
DATE:
26 SEPTEMBER 2003
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The appellant arrived in Australia on 23 December 2000 by boat without a visa. He is a citizen of Iran. He lodged an application for a protection visa on 30 December 2000. That application was refused on 1 March 2001. On 2 March 2001, the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for review of that decision. On 3 December 2001, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. On 4 December 2001, the appellant lodged an application in this Court for an order for review of the Tribunal’s decision. Carr J made an order on 1 March 2002 that the application for review be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court. The application came on for hearing before the Federal Magistrates Court on 11 June 2002 and on 23 July 2002 the application for review of the Tribunal’s decision was dismissed. The appellant filed a notice of appeal against that decision. On 27 September 2002, the Chief Justice directed that the appeal be heard by a single judge. Although the hearing was set down for 1 August 2003 it was adjourned when pro bono counsel became available. The appeal was ultimately listed for hearing on 22 September 2003.
Evidence and Claims
A post-arrival interview was conducted with the appellant by an officer of the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs through an interpreter on 29 December 2000. The standard form of record of that interview set out a number of questions and the officer’s notes of answers to those questions. Question number 2 of Part C asked why the appellant had left his country of nationality. According to the officer’s note, the appellant claimed to be an Arab from Khozestan where there was discrimination against Arabs. He could not have a normal life like other Iranians. He complained of discrimination after the Iran-Iraq war based on a perception, by other Iranians, that Iranian Arabs were sympathetic to the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. Asked specifically about discrimination suffered by him, the appellant said that when he applied for government jobs there were no jobs for him. He said that although he had passed the preliminary test for medical jobs, the first question he was asked on applying for a job was whether he was an Arab. Even if he could seek employment in ‘other companies’ because of his experience they were reluctant to employ him and rejected him.
The appellant added that if fellow Arabs got into trouble, he would be expected to help them. He said:
‘If you refuse, disowned by Arabs.’
He said there were professions which Arabs couldn’t enter. He claimed that he wanted to be a hairdresser but couldn’t because he is an Arab. The recording officer noted that the main claim in terms of persecution was lack of employment opportunities with the government.
Asked whether he had any reasons for not wishing to return to his country of nationality, the appellant is recorded as having said:
‘“Have abandoned my own tribe and it might be dangerous for me.” “because I have lived behind my tribe” “if I want to go back, I have no room and my life might be in danger from our elders.” Claims he spoke about changing “our ways”. Claims he would be rejected and send him away.’
The formal application for a protection visa was supported by a statement taken from the appellant and typed up by his migration solicitors. In that statement he described himself as a 32 year old single male from Iran. He has four brothers and three sisters still living in that country. In Iran he used to work as a loader/driving/mechanic. He said his religion is Muslim Shi’ia and his ethnicity is Arab.
Explaining why he left his country he said that being an Arab in Ahvaz he was always persecuted by the Persian majority as he was part of a minority. Arabs who dressed in their native costume would be arrested by authorities and insulted by authorities and Persian people in general. After the war with Iraq this became even more of a problem as Iranian Arabs were blamed for the Iraqi attacks.
When he finished his schooling the appellant sat for entry exams to university. He said he sat for a first aid exam and that when the examiners found out he was an Arab he was failed and not allowed to attend university. He then decided to start working. He claimed again to have been denied government jobs as he was an Arab and Persian people were given priority.
The appellant said that in 1998 Iranian authorities had set up a company known as the Ahvaz Sugar Cane Company. This government controlled company confiscated Arab land and paid very little compensation. Complaints to the authorities received no answer. His family’s land, he said, was confiscated. By way of protest he and members of his family blocked the operation of agricultural machinery on their confiscated land. He was arrested by security forces and taken to police headquarters in Ahvaz. He and other family members were forced to sign an undertaking in which they stated that if they were to protest again the authorities would treat them as anti-government. He said that for these reasons he could not live a normal life. If he were to stay in Iran he would continue to be persecuted as he is an Arab.
Under the heading ‘What I fear might happen if I go back to my country’, the appellant said in his statement in support of his application for a protection visa:
‘Our Arab community leader told us that we should fight for our right to live a free life and if I return I will have to fight for my rights as a normal human being and if I do, I will be killed.’
He went on to assert that Persian authorities would harm or mistreat him if he were to return. The reason he gave for this was as follows:
‘Due to the fact that I am an Arab. If you are of a different ethnic group you do not have any rights in Iran. They would blame us for the bombing on Iran by the Iraqis just because we were Arabs. If I continue to fight for my rights, I will be considered to be anti-government for which the penalty is death. The government says that we have no rights in Iran as we are Arabs.’
In support of the application for review by the Tribunal, legal practitioners acting for the appellant made a further submission in which they claimed that he had fled persecution and discrimination after Iranian authorities confiscated land owned by him and incarcerated him for resisting the government’s actions. According to the submission he departed Iran legally via Mehrabad airport. He was described in the submission as an Iranian Arab who had lived his whole in the city of Ahvaz. Arabs who are mainly concentrated in the Province of Khuzestan were said to have been subjected to constant pressure and persecution since the commencement of the Islamic regime in Iran. They had been blamed for the consequences of the Iran/Iraq war. It was claimed in the submission that since 1979 Iranian authorities had endeavoured to force Arabs to migrate from their homeland in order to decentralise their tribes and gradually wipe them out.
The Tribunal in its reasons for decision reviewed the appellant’s claims as set out in the initial interview with a departmental officer and subsequently in support of his application for a protection visa.
At the oral hearing the Tribunal member asked the appellant what it was that made him leave Iran. The appellant responded that his life was in danger and he felt he had to leave and seek asylum in Australia. Asked what it was that he feared he said:
‘Our land was taken from us and we tried very hard to take it back and from that we had a lot of difficulties.’
It was put to him that there were many Arabs living in Iran and evidence which showed that Iran had been very generous to Shi’ia Arabs from the South of Iraq during the 80s. However the appellant said that the Arabs in Khuzestan had suffered a great deal of pain. Ever since he was a child he recalled problems. He said in school he was beaten by teachers because his Arabic was better than his Farsi.
He was asked about the compulsory acquisition of his family’s farm land by government. He said that government had told them they had a plan for the land. Part of the land had ore deposits on it and was also good for agriculture.
In reference to the demonstrations in Ahvaz the Tribunal member put to the appellant that he understood that there was a demonstration in regard to the water quality which had become more and more salty over a period of time and also the sufficiency of the water supply. The Tribunal member put to the appellant that a number of Iranian applicants before the Tribunal who were of Persian ethnicity had claimed to have taken part in those demonstrations against the government. The Australian Mission in Tehran had advised that some six to nine people were killed by security forces at the demonstration and many more had disappeared.
The appellant maintained that there were only a few Persians at the demonstration and that the majority of them were Arabs. The Tribunal member also told the appellant that whether the people were Arab or Persian the material before him indicated that the motivation for arrest and action by the authorities was because of the violence and not because of race. The appellant responded that the government had started the violence and that this was because the people were Arabs.
The Tribunal also put to the appellant that if there were the level of discrimination against Arabs which he claimed, it was surprising that no international humanitarian organisations had become aware of it. The appellant replied by asking the Tribunal whether he thought that the Iranian government would tell international agencies what they were doing.
The Tribunal’s reasons then referred to evidence relating to the authority’s attempted acquisition of his family’s land to grow sugar cane. He told the Tribunal that he and other young people were trying to stop the acquisition and those who wanted to develop the project. Apart from himself there were about ten young people from his tribe involved. He said that the workers at the project had called for security forces who asked the appellant what he and his co-demonstrators wanted. They then said that they would not allow the workers to begin work because no money or agreement had been made.
The appellant considered that there was no point in dealing with the authorities. In the event, security forces took him and others to a local centre where they were told they could lay their complaints. However at the centre he and the other demonstrators were detained for the morning and then told what they were doing was illegal and that they were trespassing on government land. They were released on the understanding that they sign an undertaking not to become involved in such activities again. They were told if they continued to do this they could be regarded as anti-revolutionary and could be sent to the Revolutionary Court. If they continued to act as they had, they would be known as revolutionaries and the punishment could be death.
The appellant told the Tribunal that the government just took the land and began work on it. The confrontation he was involved in wasn’t the first. There were others and in those clashes a couple of people had been killed. The only time he had ever been arrested had been the morning which he described. He said, however, that often he and others entered the land at night and damaged mechanical equipment there.
On the Friday just after the appellant left Iran, there was a plan to attack the project using hunting guns and any other weapons that his colleagues could avail themselves of. He claimed that when he found out about that he became afraid and decided to leave. He was known in the area and in such an attack he would be identified and since he had signed an undertaking not to involve himself in such activities his case would be serious. He had not told the departmental officer about this as he only discovered that the attack had taken place after he was interviewed. He was told this by a brother who also said that one of his uncles was very angry with him. Three of that uncle’s sons had been arrested and the uncle had arranged for their release by telling the authorities that the appellant was the one who was behind the planning of the attack. In addition the appellant claimed before the Tribunal that the head of his tribe would not allow him back as he had left the tribe when they needed him. In Arabic culture to turn against your tribe meant that you became an outcast.
The appellant said he believed he would be on a black list if he now returned to Iran. He said this was because his uncle had reported him and blamed him for planning the attack. On that basis he would be wanted by the authorities at this time. He said that for the rest of his life he had nowhere to go as he had let his tribe down. No matter where he went in Iran they would look for him.
The Tribunal referred to country information. It also sent a letter to the appellant on 11 May 2001 under the terms of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) inviting his comment on differences between the initial interview and the details provided in the statement supporting the protection visa application. On 12 June 2001, the appellant’s adviser wrote to the Tribunal in the following terms:
‘We refer to the above matter and the copy of tape of the first interview and shall be obliged if you could bring the following to the attention of the Minister:
Regrettably the first interview has not been transcribed properly and in detail. The Applicant on many occasions during the first interview talks about discrimination against Arabs in Iran. ie deprivation of employment and education. He also discusses in length although in general terms the fact that they had to abide by tribal rules. He then adds that as an Arab he had to take action against those who persecute Arabs. He states: “If I go back I have no home I will be in danger by a Sheikh.”
We submit that the account given by our client at the first interview conforms with what he claimed in the second interview and the Tribunal hearing. The fact that he did not give a detailed account of persecution suffered in Iran should not be taken against him. Applicants are constantly reminded by their interrogators and the delegates of the department to be concise.’
Tribunal’s Findings and Reasons
The Tribunal identified as the major area of concern the question whether or not the appellant’s claims were genuine. The Tribunal had considered the claims he made when he first arrived in Australia and then considered those claims in relation to the claims later made in his application for a protection visa. In assessing the credibility of the claims the Tribunal considered the inconsistencies between those claims made when he was first interviewed and those he later made in his application for a protection visa.
Under the heading ‘Credibility’ the Tribunal considered that where the appellant’s account was generally consistent and credible he should be given the benefit of the doubt despite any lack of corroborative evidence. It then turned to inconsistencies. The Tribunal found that there was an inconsistency between the appellant’s initial interview and his later statements. The later claims were that Arab land had been confiscated and there was a move to interfere with the planned use of the land such that he had been detained with nine other young men and released only when he signed an undertaking not to be involved again. Of greater significance was the claim that the reason for his departure was that there was a planned attack which he did not support as he feared he would be identified.
However the Tribunal observed that when asked initially what made him decide to leave his country he made no mention of the claimed confiscation of the land and associated problems. He also failed to make any mention of his detention, the planned attack or the consequences of his departure. The Tribunal did not accept that the appellant would have failed to do so if, as he later claimed, these were the driving forces behind his departure. The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claims to have been involved in an altercation over land matters and found that this claim had been provided solely to give strength to an otherwise weak set of claims for a protection visa.
After referring again to country information the Tribunal found that as a minority, Arabs may face low levels of discrimination such as those the appellant described in his initial interview. However it found that discrimination against Arabs in Iran is not State practice nor is it sanctioned.
The Tribunal went on to consider the appellant’s profile. It noted his claim that he might be disowned by his tribe and his community because he had not conformed to the social mores of that tribe. The Tribunal accepted that he might have rebelled or failed to conform to the cultural norms and could have found himself outside of his tribe. It did not however accept that this arose because of any failure on his part to participate in the planned attack or because his uncle reported him as being ringleader. The Tribunal did not accept these claims as genuine and said:
‘In accepting the Applicant may not be a conformist in his tribal culture I accept the advice from Jonathan Fox as presented by the Applicant’s adviser that not all urban Arabs follows tribal culture and find that as a young able bodied man without immediate dependents and with independent employment skills, driver/mechanic, that he can live independently.’
The Tribunal found the appellant to have a marketable employment skill and that the Shi’ia Arab minority of which he was part was well represented in Khuzestan. It noted that he left the country legally using a passport in his own name and held that since he was not of concern to the Iranian authorities he could re-enter the country without adverse consequences. Whilst he might lean on his tribe for support, since he does not subscribe to their cultural mores, he could live independently without risk of facing ‘a real chance’ of persecution for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
By way of conclusion the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.
The Decision of the Federal Magistrates Court
The appellant represented himself in the Federal Magistrates Court. The learned magistrate characterised the reasons given by the appellant for his well-founded fear of persecution thus:
.the lack of educational opportunities available to members of the Arab minority in Iran and in his particular case his failure to receive a university education;
.the general antipathy towards members of the Arab ethnic minority by other Iranians and the government;
.the fact that the appellant had been asked by a leader of his tribe to take part in a demonstration with approximately ten others against the seizing of tribal lands by the government for use in the cultivation of sugar. The appellant did not take part in the demonstration which occurred after he had left. He left because he did not wish to take part in the demonstration. It was the fact of his leaving and not assisting his fellow tribes people that would make him a pariah in his community if he returned. Additionally, because he left the country he claimed that he had been reported for planning the attack by his uncle and would therefore be wanted by the Iranian authorities.
The learned magistrate referred to the Tribunal’s findings. He also referred to the appellant’s contention that the Tribunal erred in rejecting his claims about the proposed attack and its consequences on the basis that these matters had not been mentioned at the initial interview. The Tribunal referred to translated submissions from the appellant including his submissions about the initial interview based upon the cassette record of it. In his submissions he complained that part of his words had not been recorded. The learned magistrate said he had read and re-read the appellant’s submissions. Accepting that they accurately reflected what was said at the interview he could not find any reference to the planned attack which was the trigger for the appellant’s decision to depart Iran. He observed that it was not within his jurisdiction to rehear the appellant’s claims and to make a decision upon his credibility. The Tribunal had made its own decision about that, which was the function of the primary decision-maker. He also referred to the appellant’s submission that the Tribunal was wrong in its interpretation of the position of the Arab minority in Iran but that interpretation was based upon a consideration of material provided both by the department and by the appellant. It was not within the jurisdiction of the Court to review a decision arrived at in a proper manner as that one had been.
Grounds of Appeal
The grounds of appeal were set out in an amended appeal notice. They were as follows:
‘1.The Learned Primary Magistrate erred in finding that there was o reviewable error made by the Tribunal in its decision of 3 December 2001 (No 1/37417).
A.Whereas, the Learned Primary Magistrate ought to have found that the Tribunal in its decision had made reviewable errors in that it had taken into account irrelevant considerations and had not taken into account relevant considerations.
Particulars
The appellant relies on those matters set out in his short outline of submissions dated 17 September 2003 and filed herein.
B.Whereas, further the Learned Primary Magistrate ought to have found that the Tribunal in its decision had made a reviewable error in that it did not consider one of the appellant’s claims and so did not take into account a relevant consideration.
Particulars
The appellant claimed that his life would be in danger from his tribe if he was returned to Iran. That claim was not addressed by the Tribunal. The claim amounted to a claim that he would face persecution for a convention reason if he was returned to Iran.’
The Appellant’s Written Submissions
Written submissions filed by counsel for the appellant, and referred to in ground of appeal A, identified the Tribunal’s findings of inconsistencies in terms of the appellant’s failure at first interview to mention:
1.That there was an attack planned on the government project on his tribe’s land and that he had fled Iran to avoid the attack.
2.That because he had fled and avoided the attack he would face difficulties from his tribe if returned to Iran.
3.That he made no mention of the government’s confiscation of his tribe’s land at the initial interview.
4.He did not mention at the initial interview that he had been detained and released only when he had signed an undertaking.
Counsel pointed out, in the submissions, that the appellant had said in his submissions to the Federal Magistrates Court that it was only after his second interview with the case officer after 13 January 2001 that he became aware that the planned attack had actually occurred. The Tribunal appeared to have accepted that the appellant was not aware that the attack had actually occurred at the time he was interviewed by the departmental officer. Counsel also pointed out that in the appellant’s statement on 6 January 2001 he said that his tribe’s land had been confiscated, that he had protested and been detained and that he had to sign an undertaking to the authorities.
It was submitted that in coming to a view that there were inconsistencies in the appellant’s claims from time to time, the Tribunal did not take into account that he was not aware that the planned attack had actually taken place until after his first and second interviews on 29 December 2000 and 13 January 2001 respectively. This was said to be relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of his credibility and to its assessment of his claims. Failure to take them into account represented a failure on the part of the Tribunal to take into account a most relevant consideration.
It was submitted that in proceeding on the assumption that there was an inconsistency when the appellant did not know that the attack had actually occurred, the Tribunal took into account an irrelevant consideration. Moreover the Tribunal had failed to take into account, it was submitted, the consistent evidence given by the appellant on those topics on 6 January and to the case officer/delegate on 13 January 2001. Further, it was said the appellant was at all times concerned about what would happen to him if he were to return to Iran because he had abandoned his tribe. This was said to be completely consistent with his claims before the Tribunal of what would happen to him if he were returned to Iran. In failing to take account of his claims in the statement of 6 January 2001 and his evidence to the case officer/delegate on 13 January 2001, the Tribunal was said to have failed to take into account relevant considerations material to assessing both the appellant’s credibility and his claims.
The Merits of the Appeal
Having regard to the provisions of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 and the decision of the High Court in Plaintiff S157/2000 v The Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 the only basis upon which the learned magistrate could have granted relief would have been jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. On the materials before the learned magistrate, no jurisdictional error was disclosed. On appeal from his Honour, Mr Howard, counsel acting pro bono for the appellant, sought to identify such error.
First Mr Howard submitted that the Tribunal had taken into account an irrelevant consideration and failed to take into account a relevant consideration. This contention was linked to the Tribunal’s finding of inconsistency based upon the appellant’s failure to mention, at the initial interview, that he had left Iran because of the pending attack in which he might be thought to be involved. The Tribunal’s finding on this point was expressed thus:
‘He was asked what it was that made him decide to leave his country. He made no mention of the claimed confiscation of land and the associated problems with that. He failed to make any mention of his detention, the planned attack and the consequences of his departure.’
The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had begun planning to leave Iran some two to three years before his actual departure.
The substance of counsel’s submission, as developed orally, seemed to be that the Tribunal wrongly used the inconsistency between the initial claim and those later made, in relation to the planned attack, to disregard the claim of a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of the actual occurrence of the attack, an event which took place after the appellant arrived in Australia.
The Tribunal was, of course, entitled to observe that the appellant had made no mention, at his initial interview, of the pending attack which was supposed to be the trigger for his departure from Iran. And it was entitled to draw an adverse inference about the credibility of the appellant from that omission. Moreover, it was entitled to have regard to that aspect of its findings on credibility in assessing other aspects of the appellant’s claims.
In relation to the actual occurrence of the attack the Tribunal specifically referred to the appellant’s account that his brother had told him, after he arrived in Australia, that the attack had taken place and that one of his uncles was very angry with him because three of that uncle’s sons had been arrested. The Tribunal also had regard to his evidence that he was told his uncle had arranged for the release of his sons by telling the authorities that the appellant was behind the planning of the attack.
The Tribunal referred to the appellant’s contention that the head of his tribe would not allow him back as he had left the tribe when they needed him and that in Arabic culture, to turn against ones Tribe meant that one would become an outcast. It referred to his statement that no matter where he went in Iran ‘they would come to look for him’.
The Tribunal did not in terms find that the planned attack had not occurred. It did however reject the appellant’s claim to have been involved in an altercation over land matters and found that that claim had been provided solely to give strength to an otherwise weak set of claims for a protection visa. It also found that he was not of concern to the Iranian authorities and could re-enter the country without adverse consequences. It found that he had left Iran because he was unable to find employment of his choosing and because he did not subscribe to the cultural mores and expectations of his tribe.
In the circumstances, although it would have been preferable had the Tribunal made explicit reference to the contention that an attack had occurred after the event and that his uncle had put it about that the appellant was involved, the global rejection of his credibility in respect of claims relating to the attack adequately covers this claim. The Tribunal is not obliged to deal with every contention raised by an applicant before it. In particular, this is not a case in which, in my opinion, jurisdictional error was disclosed by failure to advert to the actual occurrence of the attack.
The second ground of appeal involved the Tribunal’s alleged failure to consider the appellant’s claim that his life would be in danger from his tribe if he were returned to Iran. Again, this claim was closely linked to the question of participation in the planned attack. There is no doubt that at some points he appeared to be contending that he would be in danger from his tribe if he returned to Iran.
In the submissions dated 12 June 2001 from his migration lawyers to the Tribunal it was said that the appellant had discussed, in his initial interview, the requirement to abide by tribal rules. He allegedly said that as an Arab he had to take action against those who persecute Arabs and stated:
‘If I go back I have no home I will be in danger by a Sheik.’
In the earlier statement, made 6 January 2001 to his then migration advisers, the appellant said:
‘Our Arab community leader told us that we should fight for our right to live a free life and if I return I will have to fight for my rights as a normal human being and if I do, I will be killed.’
Notwithstanding counsel’s submissions this does not appear to be a statement about a threat of physical harm from members of the Arab community if the appellant were to be returned to Iran. In dealing with this aspect of the appellant’s claims the Tribunal said:
‘The Applicant has claimed that he may be disowned by his tribe and his community because he has not conformed to social mores of that tribe.’
The Tribunal, it was said, failed to address the claim that his life would be in danger from his tribe if he were returned to Iran. The Tribunal’s implied rejection of that claim is subsumed in the wider rejection of the proposition that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of rebelling against or failing to conform to the cultural norms of his tribe. In fact, it found positively that as a young able-bodied man without immediate dependents and with independent employment skills he could live independently. The Tribunal was not required to deal with every aspect of the appellant’s claims. To the extent that the appellant did advance the claim for which he now contends it had no clear connection to a well-founded fear of persecution. I am not satisfied that there was in this respect any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
Conclusion
For the preceding reasons the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice French. Associate:
Dated: 26 September 2003
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Howard (pro bono) Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Allanson Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 22 September 2003 Date of Judgment: 26 September 2003
0