Gunaseelan, Perumal v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 434

C A T C H W O R D S MIGRATION - refugee status - alleged persecution on grounds of ethnic origin and political opinion - alleged discrimination in employment and education - policy of preference to indigenous Malays in employment and education - whether adverse impacts on applicant constitute persecution - time for assessment of determination of refugee status - content of persecution - no error of law disclosed. Migration Act 1958 s.29, s.36 Judiciary Act 1903 s.485 Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee In International Law, Clarendon (1996) Chan v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 Oyarzo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration [1982] 2 F.C. 779 Chen v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 58 FCR 96 Ji Kil Soon v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 37 ALD 609 Thalary v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unrep. Fed Court, Mansfield J 4/4/97) United Steelworkers v. Weber 443 U.S. 193 (1979) MR PERUMAL GUNASEELAN v. THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS No. VG 391 of 1996 FRENCH J MELBOURNE 9 MAY 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) No. VG 391 of 1996 B E T W E E N: MR PERUMAL GUNASEELAN Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS CORAM French J DATE: 9 May 1997 PLACE: Melbourne THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application. Settlement and entry of these orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) No. VG 391 of 1996 B E T W E E N: MR PERUMAL GUNASEELAN Applicant and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent CORAM: French J DATE: 9 May 1997 PLACE Melbourne REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia who was born in that country on 30 July 1961. He is unmarried, with no relatives in Australia. His parents and two sisters live in Malaysia. On 13 May 1989, the applicant arrived in Perth on a six month visitor's visa. On 10 September 1990, he lodged an application for refugee status with the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The application was based on his asserted fear of persecution on account of his activities as a member of the Democratic Action Party in Malaysia. He also claimed to have been subject to discrimination in relation to access to higher education and employment opportunities because of his Indian ethnic origin. On 15 September 1992, a letter was sent to the applicant attaching a Departmental Case Officer's official assessment of his application. The applicant was invited to respond with any comments on the assessment within 15 days. The assessment indicated a generally unfavourable view of the claim. The applicant responded through solicitors on 2 October 1992. On 8 October 1992, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs wrote advising that the application had been unsuccessful. a statement of reasons for the decision was attached to the letter. On 30 October 1992, the applicant, through his solicitors, applied for review by the Refugee Status Review Committee of the decision to refuse him the grant of refugee status and for review of a related decision to refuse to grant him a Domestic Protection (Temporary)Entry Permit. He also sought permission to engage in employment in Australia. On 1 July 1993 the Refugee Status Review Committee ceased to exist and the pending applications were dealt with as applications to the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 1 December 1995 to inform him that it was now dealing with his case. The application for refugee status was treated as an application for a protection visa. On 4 June 1996, the Tribunal made a decision in the following terms: 1. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a refugee. 2. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not entitled to a protection visa. 3. The Tribunal varies the delegate's decisions so that the decisions now have effect as a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant has applied to this Court for an order of review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958. Statutory Framework The grant of visas is authorised by s.29 of the Migration Act 1958, which provides, in part: "29(1) Subject to this Act, the Minister may grant a non-citizen permission, to be known as a visa, to do either or both of the following: (a) travel to and enter Australia; (b) remain in Australia."