Abedi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 43 Abedi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 208 NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC) The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002. Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation. The transitional arrangements are as follows: * All Full Court judgments delivered prior to 1 January 2002 will retain the FCA medium neutral citation. * All Full Court judgments delivered between 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 have been assigned parallel medium neutral citations in both the FCA and FCAFC series. * All Full Court judgments delivered from 1 May 2002 will contain the FCAFC medium neutral citation only. FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Abedi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 208 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476 ALI JUMA ABEDI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS W 392 OF 2001 HEEREY, MARSHALL AND DOWSETT JJ PERTH 6 MARCH 2002 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 392 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: ALI JUMA ABEDI APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES HEEREY, MARSHALL AND DOWSETT JJ DATE OF ORDER: 6 MARCH 2002 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's cost 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 W 392 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: ALI JUMA ABEDI APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: HEEREY, MARSHALL AND DOWSETT JJ DATE: 6 MARCH 2002 PLACE: PERTH REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a single judge of the Court, Hely J. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). The RRT decided that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa. 2 The appellant claimed to be a citizen of Afghanistan and made claims that he had a well founded fear of persecution, for reasons associated with the Refugees Convention, if returned to Afghanistan. The RRT was not satisfied that the appellant was a national of Afghanistan, having regard to evidence before it suggesting that he was the holder of a Pakistani passport. 3 Hely J observed that the RRT's decision depended upon its assessment of the appellant's credibility. In response to a criticism of the RRT's reasoning process by counsel for the appellant, Hely J noted that the RRT did not merely find against the appellant because he entered Indonesia on a Pakistani passport. His Honour said at [19] that the application also failed "because (the) RRT did not believe the various explanations which he gave about that matter, and because, in (the) RRT's assessment, deficiencies in his knowledge of matters in relation to Afghanistan were such that (the) RRT was not persuaded that he was a national of that country." 4 At [21] of his judgment, Hely J set out various other criticisms which the appellant's counsel made about the RRT decision before his Honour. At [22] Hely J found that none of the criticisms were made out. The criticisms essentially quarrelled with the RRT's findings of fact about the appellant's status. No useful purpose is served by repeating them. 5 His Honour also rejected a submission that s 476(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) applied to the decision of the RRT. At [24], Hely J said that: "It is hard to see how s 476(1)(g) is enlivened when the decision is one of lack of satisfaction that the relevant criteria for the grant of a protection visa have been made out." 6 On the appeal the appellant represented himself, assisted by an interpreter. The grounds referred to in the notice of appeal were discursive and essentially took issue with the merits of the decision of the RRT that the appellant was not a citizen of Afghanistan. In his oral submissions, the appellant sought to explain the inconsistent statements he had previously made in connection with his claim for refugee status, particularly concerning the Pakistani passport that was in his name. He said that statements made on his behalf were wrong but that he was later told by a solicitor that it was too late to change them. Mainly these are not matters which affect the validity of the reasoning of Hely J. 7 We respectfully agree with the reasoning of Hely J on the issues raised for determination before him. His Honour's reasons for judgment do not disclose any error. It is appropriate to order that the appeal be dismissed, with costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Heerey, Marshall and Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 6 March 2002 The appellant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Ritter Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 6 March 2002 Date of Judgment: 6 March 2002