Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WABN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 152
WABN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS W513 OF 2001 FRENCH, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ 23 MAY 2002 PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W513 OF 2001
On Appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
BETWEEN: WABN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: FRENCH, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 23 MAY 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 W513 OF 2001
On Appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
BETWEEN: WABN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: FRENCH, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE: 23 MAY 2002
PLACE: PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FRENCH J: 1 I join in the order proposed by Moore J for the reasons he gives.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice French .
Associate: Dated: 12 June 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W513 OF 2001
On Appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
BETWEEN: WABN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: FRENCH, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE: 23 MAY 2002
PLACE: PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MOORE J: 2 This is an appeal from a judgment of Carr J of 25 October 2001 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal decided on 30 May 2001 to affirm a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant appeared in person before the primary judge and was also unrepresented in this appeal. 3 The Tribunal appears to have accepted that the appellant was a national of Syria and found that he was a Christian. The appellant's claim for a protection visa was based on his account of his experiences in Syria. Some arose from the fact that he operated a liquor store and others from an incident when he made some derogatory remarks about the Syrian President. His asserted fear of persecution was also based on him having claimed asylum in Australia. To the extent that the appellant based his claim for a protection visa on being a Christian, the Tribunal accepted that the appellant had experienced some harassment, but it did not amount to persecution. 4 In relation to the other matters the appellant relied on, the Tribunal did not accept, as the primary judge observed, that the appellant had suffered the adverse treatment he claimed to have experienced as a result of operating a liquor store. Nor did the Tribunal accept the appellant's claims about the consequences of him having made derogatory remarks about the Syrian President. The Tribunal did not accept that the appellant left Syria illegally. It also did not accept that the appellant was at risk of harm in Syria because he had claimed asylum in Australia. 5 In his notice of appeal, the appellant asserts that as a Christian in a Muslim country, he might face a real chance of persecution if returned to that country. Understandably, the appellant does not identify in the notice any legal error on the part of the Tribunal or error on the part of the primary judge. The primary judge was correct in saying that the Tribunal's conclusion was clearly open to it on the evidence before it. His Honour was also correct in saying that the appellant had, in substance, sought to canvass in this Court the merits of the Tribunal's decision. It is not the role of this Court to consider the merits of the Tribunal's decision. The appeal should be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate