Aala, Mansour v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 611

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 32 of 1997 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: MANSOUR AALA

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: BEAUMONT PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 17 JUNE 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal 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 ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NG 32 of 1997 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: MANSOUR AALA

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: BEAUMONT PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 17 JUNE 1997

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The applicant has appeared before me in person, having attempted, without success, to obtain either legal aid or pro bono representation by the Law Society of New South Wales. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution in Iran and for that reason, the Tribunal expressed its satisfaction that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. The reasons for that conclusion were expressed by the Tribunal in detailed and extensive reasons which I will not attempt to summarise here. It will suffice to say that it appears to me that the Tribunal addressed the correct legal question. It was no more than a question of fact, indeed, from the applicant's point of view a very important fact, but nonetheless only a question of fact for the Tribunal to decide whether the applicant did or did not face a real chance of persecution in Iran. The High Court of Australia has recently laid down the approach that this Court should adopt in such matters. (See Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pan, High Court of Australia, 13 June 1997, unreported). I need not restate their Honours' process of reasoning. However, since the applicant appears in person, I will make the High Court's decision available to him on the footing that I am, of course, bound by that decision and the reasoning which supported it. For completeness, I would add that there is a suggestion in the extensive written submissions lodged by the applicant that, in the course of the interview process, the Tribunal may have mislead him. This would, of course, be an independent ground for interfering with the Tribunal's decision but I am not satisfied that any basis exists for this. In the circumstances, the application will be dismissed with costs. I certify that this and the preceding one (1) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont