WABX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 27 (18 January 2002)

Last Updated: 31 January 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WABX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 27

MIGRATION - judicial review - Refugee Review Tribunal - no reviewable error disclosed - application dismissed - no question of principle

WABX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W525 OF 2001

FRENCH J

18 JANUARY 2002

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W525 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WABX APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 JANUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

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	W525 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WABX APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE:	18 JANUARY 2002
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The applicants are father and daughter who are nationals of Iran. They came to Australia without lawful authority on 1 March 2001. They lodged an application for protection visas with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 10 April 2001. That application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 15 June 2001. On 20 June 2001, they applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for a review of that decision. On 19 October the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant them protection visas. On 13 November the father made an application to this Court seeking review of the decision of the Tribunal.

2 The law has been changed, with effect from 2 October, so that applications of this kind can no longer be entertained by the Court. However, I am prepared to treat the application as being made under the jurisdiction given to the Court by the Judiciary Act. As I explained to the father at the beginning of the hearing, the law now provides that decisions of the Tribunal, among others, are final and conclusive. There are only certain exceptional grounds upon which the Court can interfere with such decisions. No such grounds, indeed no grounds at all, are shown on the application that was lodged with the Court. No such grounds have been advanced in the submissions made by the applicant. I have read the reasons of the Tribunal and, on the face of the reasons, no such grounds appear.

3 Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant father is a 38-year-old man from Shiraz in Iran. He has custody of his five-year-old daughter from his first marriage. He has a certificate in civil engineering and his occupation is that of a surveyor. In the reasons for decision of the Tribunal there is set out in full the submission he made in support of his protection visa application. That submission recounts a history of political activity in opposition to the regime in Iran. There is reference to him being detained in 1986 and again in 1991 and 1994. He also said that in 1997 the Basij took him one night and interrogated him but subsequently released him. He said he continued to distribute pamphlets and attend demonstrations. He was detained in 1999, interrogated and beaten. However, he said he was released after twenty-four hours. In 2000, he said he was attacked while he was on the road. He was stabbed and told that he should not engage in any political activities or distribute pamphlets. He said he was told by his attackers that next time if they found him involved in activities they would kill him. He thought these people were Basij or Pasdarin plain clothes. After this, he said he fled to Tehran where he stayed with friends for six months. He was in hiding because he said he heard that authorities had raided his house in Shiraz. He did not engage in any political activities in Tehran as he knew it would be dangerous for his daughter and himself. He stayed in Tehran to find a way to escape from Iran with his daughter.

4 The applicant father gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing. In the course of that evidence he said he had been issued with a passport in 1999 and that he left Iran using that passport. He told the Tribunal that he knew he was blacklisted and could not exit Iran. He waited until he could get help to do that. He was asked various questions about his activities and his political views. A further submission was put to the Tribunal by the applicant father's legal adviser after the hearing. The Tribunal referred in its reasons to country information relating to Iran and particularly to the political organisations in that country and the government's attitude to people who have political opinions. The Tribunal also referred to country information concerning departures from Iran and the existence of a black list.

5 In its findings and reasons, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant father had had a minor political involvement in Iran over a twenty-year period. However it was not satisfied that he was known to and faced persecution from Iranian authorities because of his political activities. It referred to the fact that he was issued with a passport in January 1999 and that the process was straightforward requiring only proof of completion of military service. It referred to country information about a black list which was to the effect that people on the black list would have their application for a passport refused. The information indicated that people were blacklisted if they had a history of active political opposition to the regime. The Tribunal was not satisfied, therefore, that the applicant had a history of political opposition to the government over a twenty-year period which resulted in the authorities regularly questioning and detaining him. The fact that he obtained his passport without difficulty indicated that he was not on the black list and because he was not on the black list the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Iranian authorities wanted to imprison or execute him on account of his political activities. The Tribunal referred also to his claims that he was detained on eight to ten occasions but never charged with a political offence. The Tribunal did not think that the authorities would detain him on so many occasions and never press charges yet now wanted to imprison or execute him. The Tribunal considered his claim to be a dissident and political activist over a twenty-year period to be vague and unconvincing. These matters taken together led the Tribunal to reject the claim that the applicant father was a political activist facing imprisonment or execution on his return to Iran.

6 The Tribunal also referred to the country information relating to the possibility of using bribery to have a person's name removed from the black list to enable departure from Iran. On the basis of this country information the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim that he was blacklisted and that no action was taken against him at the airport because of a bribe. The Tribunal did accept that the applicant participated in some political activities such as demonstrations and that he may have been briefly detained because of this. However, it found that his minor participation in political activities over a twenty year period was not of interest to the Iranian authorities. It did not give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution from the authorities on his return to Iran.

7 In his submissions to the Court, the applicant first alleged a bias on the part of the Tribunal member. This was unsupported except by reference to his assertion that the Tribunal member had said that he had been assisted with his application. There is nothing in the findings of the Tribunal to support that contention. In any event the comments made in the course of the hearing which might reflect upon the credibility of evidence are not themselves indications of bias. Other points raised by the applicant included the existence of two different lists affecting a person's ability to get a passport and focussed on the argument that the Tribunal had not had regard to aspects of the evidence affecting the question of departure from Iran. These and other matters raised by the applicant all went to the question of the Tribunal's findings of fact on the evidence. None of those matters give rise to any ground upon which the Court could set aside the Tribunal decision. For these reasons the application will be dismissed and the applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice French.

Associate:

Dated:

Counsel for the Applicant:
Solicitor for the Applicant:	WABX appeared on his own behalf
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr JD Allanson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	18 January 2002
Date of Judgment:	18 January 2002