nama JUDGMENT No. -ssseesesssssoeelssssserseee IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 789 of 1995 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : JOO SONG TAN Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent CORAM: LOCKHART J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 6 MARCH 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKHART J. This is an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 19 September 1995 to the effect that the applicant, Mr Joo Song Tan, is not entitled to protection as a refugee under the Migration Act 1958 and affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant represents himself today, he does not have any lawyers with him but he has in the past in relation to this matter engaged the services of at least two solicitors, each of whom has on different occasions filed a notice of ceasing to act. In the course of the retainer of the solicitors the application for review was filed, as were two affidavits of the applicant which are on the Court file and which I have read. The applicant has, however, had available to him today the services of an interpreter, a Mr Cui, who has translated the proceedings from the English language into the Mandarin language and the Mandarin language into the English language. Certain of that material consisted of the evidence of Mr Tan. Mr Tan was briefly cross-examined by counsel for the Minister. It is always very difficult when parties appear in person who are not conversant with the English language; but I have done the best I can with all the material before me. I am satisfied that with the assistance of Mr Cui, the interpreter, the applicant has understood the substance of what has occurred this morning. And, of course, as I said, the Court has the benefit of two affidavits of the applicant, which are quite extensive. The issues in the proceeding are set out in a document headed Summary of Issues in Amended Application for an Order of Review, and that is a document filed on 7 June 1996 by the solicitors then acting for the applicant, who were the second solicitors retained by him in the matter. I have read all the evidence and have read the summary of issues and other documents in the Court file. It is important that the applicant understands that all the Court is hearing is his application to review the Tribunal's decision of 19 September 1995. The Court is not here to, as it were, hear all the evidence and decide on the merits Mr Tan's plea to remain in Australia on whatever basis he seeks to support his case. Those are matters entrusted to the Minister and his Department. I have carefully read the reasons for decision of the Tribunal, and I need say very little about the facts, but I will mention some of them. The applicant is 41 years of age, and he is of Chinese ethnicity and Malaysian nationality. He arrived in Australia on 10 October 1987 when he was granted an entry permit for one month. He did not leave Australia upon the expiry of his entry permit. He subsequently renewed from time to time his Malaysian passport, the renewal having been valid to 15 January 1995. It would appear that the material presented by the applicant to the Tribunal was prepared with the assistance of his lawyers, although he was not represented by lawyers before the Tribunal. I am satisfied that ample opportunity was afforded to the applicant to furnish material to the Tribunal as he wished, and that he put to the Tribunal whatever material he did wish to put. The Tribunal considered the relevant matters bearing on the question whether the applicant is entitled to protection as a refugee under the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal after carefully reviewing the material before it concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution in Malaysia if he were to return there. The case for the applicant before the Tribunal related to alleged persecution on the grounds of religion, and whether, because of Malaysian law, having been overseas illegally for some years would deny him the protection of the Malaysian government. The Tribunal found that there was no corroborative evidence that the Malaysian government would act against a person such as the applicant in a way which could be said to be persecutory. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention - that is the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under' the convention. Accordingly, as he failed to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a protection visa, such a visa could not be granted. Having carefully considered the grounds of the application for review set out in the amended application and the summary of issues to which I have referred, I have come to the conclusion that none of the grounds has been established. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. The Court orders the applicant to pay the costs of the respondent of the proceeding including any reserved costs. I certify that this and the preceding four (4) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Lockhart Associate: 5 BahafolKe Dated: 6 March 1997 Applicant represented himself. Counsel for the Respondent: R Beech-Jones Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 6 March 1997 Date of Judgement: 6 March 1997