PW87/2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 46 PW87/2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 212 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 PW87/2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 212 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476 PW87/2001 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS W 379 OF 2001 HEEREY, MARSHALL AND DOWSETT JJ PERTH 7 MARCH 2002 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 379 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: PW87/2001 APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: HEEREY, MARSHALL AND DOWSETT JJ DATE OF ORDER: 7 MARCH 2002 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 W 379 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: PW87/2001 APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: HEEREY, MARSHALL AND DOWSETT JJ DATE: 7 MARCH 2002 PLACE: PERTH REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT 1 This is an appeal from Hely J who refused to grant review under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") to refuse the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of Iran. He entered Australia in October 2000 and made an application to the respondent for a protection visa. On 30 October 2000, a delegate of the respondent refused the appellant's application. 3 The appellant applied to the RRT on 9 November 2000 for a review of the decision of the delegate. He was assisted in his application by a migration agent. That application was heard by the RRT on 15 January 2001. On 27 February 2001, the RRT affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant a protection visa to the appellant. 4 On 8 August 2000, Hely J heard the appellant's application for review by the Court of the RRT's decision. Senior counsel represented the appellant before Hely J. Two grounds of review under s476 of the Act were relied upon. They were as follows: · there was no evidence to justify the making of the decision that the appellant did not have a well founded fear of persecution; and · the decision involved an error of law involving the incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or the incorrect application of the law as found by the RRT. 5 The RRT made several findings of fact which were broadly favourable to the appellant, including the fact that he was detained in 1992 on suspicion of being linked to the MKO, a proscribed militant political group, and that he fled Iran after the arrest of two members of another political group to which he also belonged. The appellant had been involved in the process of distribution of anti-Government pamphlets. The RRT described the appellant's role in that process as "marginal" and "brief". It found that his chances of being detained on return to Iran would be remote. 6 The RRT also found that the appellant was not likely to have difficulty in finding employment in Iran on account of religious persecution. 7 Hely J rejected the appellant's submission that there was no evidence to justify the making of the RRT's decision. He also held that the RRT's decision was not infected by legal error within the meaning of s 476(1)(e) of the Act. At [22] his Honour said that: "(t)he appraisal and weighing of circumstances is a responsibility which is committed to (the) RRT. It was open to (the) RRT to come to the conclusion which it did. There is no reviewable error." 8 On appeal before us the appellant appeared for himself assisted by an interpreter. He relied upon the same grounds which were unsuccessfully raised by senior counsel before Hely J. No additional matters of consequence for the appeal were raised. 9 We consider that Hely J's reasons for decision disclose no error. Accordingly the appeal will be dismissed, with costs. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Heerey, Marshall and Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 7 March 2002 The appellant appeared for himself Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L A Tsaknis Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 7 March 2002 Date of Judgment: 7 March 2002