Muniswamappa, Nagaraju Tammannappa v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 906

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 320 of 1998

BETWEEN: NAGARAJU TAMMANNAPPA MUNISWAMAPPA

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 29 JULY 1998

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background This is an application to review a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") on 20 March 1998, whereby the RRT affirmed a decision by the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant is unrepresented in the proceedings, although he was assisted by an interpreter in the Hindi language. As Mr Braham, who appeared on behalf of the Minister, observed in his written submissions, the application is framed in general terms and does not specify with any precision the error of law or other ground for review under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Migration Act") upon which the applicant seeks to rely. Not surprisingly, the applicant was unable to articulate in his oral submissions any ground of review which is available under the Migration Act. In these circumstances, the most convenient course is to outline briefly the history of the matter. The applicant is a citizen of India, born on 3 April 1956. He is married, with two children. His family resides in Bangalore in the State of Karnataka, India. The applicant arrived in Australia in about July 1996. In August 1996, he lodged an application for a protection visa. In April 1997, the Minister's delegate refused to grant a protection visa. In May 1997, the applicant sought review of that decision by the RRT. As I have already indicated, on 20 March 1998 the RRT affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate.

The Applicant's Claim The applicant provided very little information relevant to his claim in his original application for a protection visa. The application form asks a number of questions and provides space for an applicant to give answers. The questions on the form include the following: · Why did you leave [India]? · What do you fear may happen to you if you go back to [India]? · Who do you think may harm/mistreat you if you go back? · Why do you think they will harm/mistreat you if you go back? · Do you think the authorities of [India] can and will protect you if you go back? · If not, why not? In response to each of these questions the applicant wrote: "STATEMENT TO COME." Following rejection of his application by the Minister's delegate, the applicant sought review in the RRT. He gave as his reasons for making the application the following: "For further submission & evidence I have not received any reminder letter from the Department. Moreover, the Department did not call me even for any oral evidence or interview." The RRT requested the applicant to attend a hearing and he did so. The applicant was assisted at the hearing by an interpreter in the Hindi language. In the course of his oral evidence, the applicant claimed that he had been a member of the Congress Party in Bangalore in about 1993 to 1994. In about 1994, the government of the State of Karnataka changed. The previous party leader, S Bangarappa, established a new party known as the Karnataka Congress Party ("KC Party"). The applicant claimed that he joined the KC Party in 1994. He said that, as a consequence, members of the old Congress Party began to threaten and abuse him and members of his family. He also said that, although the KC Party no longer existed at the time of the RRT hearing, the old animosities continued and he feared that he would be threatened by old Congress Party members should he be required to return to India. The applicant provided to the RRT copies of several newspaper articles, one dated 4 April 1994, which reported demands made by the KC Party for fresh elections for the State Assembly.