FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA IMMIGRATION – review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no point of general principle Migration Act (1976) (Cth) ANICIA BRIONES v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS ng 465 of 1998 MADGWICK J SYDNEY 13 AUGUST 1998 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 465 of 1998 BETWEEN: ANICIA BRIONES Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE(S): MADGWICK DATE OF ORDER: 13 AUGUST 1998 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 465 of 1998 BETWEEN: ANICIA BRIONES Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE(S): MADGWICK DATE: 13 august 1998 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: The applicant is a 39 year old woman who is a national of the Philippines. She came to Australia on 13 September 1997, and a month later lodged an application for a protection visa, which was refused by the Minister's delegate. The Refugee Review Tribunal refused her application for review to disturb the decision of the delegate. It appears that for about 18 years the applicant worked at a fairly large scale place of employment known as Aris Philippines in Manilla. It seems that the workforce at this workplace was unionised and that the union was dominated by "communist" forces. Apparently the applicant operated as the "eyes and ears" of management reporting on union activities. The union called a strike and the company closed down. New management took over the company and the former employees were not re-hired. Apparently her co-workers and/or union officials blamed her for the failure of the strike and for the plight in which the former employees found themselves. Nevertheless, she claimed also not to be able to find work because she was black listed as a former union member, despite her role on behalf of management at the Aris work site. The applicant claims that up to August 1996 she was subjected to a variety of threatening behaviour which she blamed on persons connected with the union operating at the Aris site. Apparently the "communists" who run the unions have "liquidation squads", among other things, to provide muscle to enforce the will of the Communists. The police, according to the applicant, are powerless to stop them. All of this might sound supportive of a claim of persecution for reasons of political opinion; however, the premises upon which the claim was founded were not accepted by the Tribunal. In the first place, it seems that the applicant told the Tribunal that she had not received threats after August 1996, and had in fact continued to reside at the same location for 13 months before coming to Australia. The Tribunal drew the conclusion that "it is clear from the applicant's own evidence that the people who had previously made threats against the applicant ceased to be interested in her". The Tribunal also noted that "the threats she did receive prior to August 1996 did not result in any physical harm being done to her". Accordingly, the Tribunal expressed itself as satisfied that there was no real chance of the applicant being persecuted in the Philippines for Convention reasons. Such a view appears to have been legally open to the Tribunal and it is no part of the Court's jurisdiction to interfere with a legally unobjectionable finding of fact. As to her claim that, in effect, she was persecuted through not being able to find work because of an employer black list against union members (of whom she had been one) the Tribunal, as I understand the reasons for decision, rejected this claim because the applicant stated at the hearing before the Tribunal that she could be employed in a hospital clinic of considerable size apparently run by her brothers and sisters. The Tribunal concluded "the applicant's claim of being unable to find employment in the Philippines was therefore lacking in credibility". Again, this is a conclusion in the realm of fact and on the material cited by the Tribunal I see no reason to think that it was not legally open. On the material, therefore, despite exercising my mind on the applicant's behalf , I can see no arguable basis to suggest any legal error made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Court is therefore unable to intervene, and the application will be dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs in the proceedings. I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick Associate: Dated: 13 August 1998 Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: R Beech-Jones Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 13 August 1998 Date of Judgment: 13 August 1998