Singh, M. v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor [1995] FCA 432

C A T C H W O R D S IMMIGRATION - Judicial review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - application by person of Sikh faith from the Punjab for refugee status - applicant's claim that he had been falsely charged with criminal offences - claim that charges were politically motivated - Tribunal considered applicant's claim speculative - no error of law. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) The Law of Refugee Status (1991) U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1993 (India) Handbook

Chan Yee Kin v The Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs (1989-1990) 169 CLR 379 Shi Ping v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (unreported: judgment delivered 28 November 1994) Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 MANJIT SINGH Applicant - and - MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS - and - REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Respondents O'Loughlin J. Adelaide 9 June 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. SG 88 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) B E T W E E N: MANJIT SINGH Applicant - and - MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS - and - REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Respondents MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER : O'LOUGHLIN J. WHERE MADE : ADELAIDE DATE OF ORDER : 9 JUNE 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application be dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. SG 88 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) B E T W E E N: MANJIT SINGH Applicant - and - MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS - and - REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Coram: O'Loughlin J. Place: Adelaide Date : 9 June 1995 The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision that he is not a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva of 28 July 1951 ("the Convention") as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 ("the Protocol"). The relevant decision was made on 20 October 1994 by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). Article 1A(2) of the Convention, as amended by the Protocol, provides that the term "refugee" applies to a person who: "... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence... is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." The applicant, who is 51 years of age, is a member of the Sikh faith from the district of Kapurthala in the Punjab region of India. He arrived in Australia on 29 July 1993 as a visitor, stating, as the reason for entry, that he intended to visit his brother and his brother's family. He was granted an entry permit that was valid until 29 October 1993. The applicant is married and has three adult sons; they and the applicant's wife remained in India when he came to Australia. The applicant lodged his application for refugee status with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ("the Department") on 5 August 1993; he also applied for a Domestic Protection (Temporary) Entry Permit (DPTEP) and a Processing Entry Permit (PEP). These applications having been refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ("the Minister") the applicant unsuccessfully sought a review of those decisions through the Tribunal. The applicant now contends before this court that the Tribunal erred in finding that he was not a refugee; he claims, as a consequence of the amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") that came into force on 1 September 1994, that he is now entitled to a protection visa: see s36 of the Act. In his application for refugee status, the applicant claimed that Sikhs had not been able to practice their religion since 1984, when Indian troops entered the Golden Temple at Amritsar; he also claimed that there was no freedom of speech in the Punjab. To the extent to which those claims, and the applicant's evidence in support of them, may have been advanced as the bases for a "well-founded fear of being persecuted" for one or other of the Convention reasons, they were rejected by the Tribunal and were not the subject of any of the grounds of the present application. It is not therefore necessary to refer to them further save as to the question of the applicant's credibility. That leaves for consideration a review of the Tribunal's findings with respect to the circumstances surrounding the laying of certain criminal charges against the applicant and members of his family: were they politically motivated and what fate awaits the applicant if he returns to the Punjab?