Zeb v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1544

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 460 of 1998

BETWEEN: RANA MUHAMMAD AURANG ZEB & ANORS

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 AUGUST 1998

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application be dismissed. 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 G 460 of 1998

BETWEEN: RANA MUHAMMAD AURANG ZEB & ANORS

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 3 AUGUST 1998

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This application is without merit. It is for an order of review under Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 15 April 1998 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant protection visas to the applicants, Mr Aurang Zeb, and his wife and son. All are citizens of Pakistan who arrived in Australia on 27 September 1996. Only Mr Zeb makes a claim to being a refugee for the purposes of the Act, Mrs Zeb and their son merely relying on Mr Zeb's claim. Mr Zeb appeared in person at the hearing.

The course of the Tribunal Hearing On the morning of the hearing Mrs Zeb provided a statement of the Tribunal. It suggested for the first time that her husband had distributed leaflets in his local area in Pakistan naming a number of local people including the local Member of Parliament in the Assembly of Pakistan (Mr Rasool) and exposing their drug dealings. Mr Zeb, for his part, provided the Tribunal with four documents being (i) a certificate from the Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab stating that Mr and Mrs Zeb were "bona fide members of the Pakistan Peoples Party" (PPP); (ii) a document from the PPP stating Mr Zeb was a party member; (iii) a copy of a "detention order" stating Mr Zeb was subject to a detention order; and (iv) a letter from a hospital in Lahore stating that Mr Zeb had been admitted and treated for injuries to his back. Put shortly Mr Zeb claims he left Pakistan because he was afraid of being persecuted by members of the rival political party, the Pakistan Muslim League and the police. He referred to several harassing police visits to his home and then his arrest where he claims he was badly beaten necessitating his going to hospital. And he asserted he exposed the drug dealings of people in his area including Mr Rasool whom he identified as his oppressor. At the hearing the Tribunal member interviewed Mr Zeb in the absence of his wife and obtained his version of events (inter alia) which would have been known to both of them. The member then interviewed Mrs Zeb and obtained her account. There were important differences between the two. I merely note the following as illustrative. (a) "Mr Aurang Zeb was asked whether he had ever seen a decision made by the Tribunal which related to a Pakistani who had campaigned against drug dealers. He stated that he had not seen any Tribunal decisions. He was too busy working and had no time to look at anything like that." (b) "Ms Zeb was asked whether she and her husband had ever seen any decisions by the Refugee Review Tribunal. She initially said that they had not. Ms Zeb was then asked whether she was sure about this. She then said that they had seen a decision. It was a decision about a Pakistani who had campaigned against drug dealers. The decision was given to them by the person the decision was about. She does not know his name." Mrs Zeb's evidence was then put to Mr Zeb. This resulted in his calling into question her mental fitness to give evidence, a view he repeated on a number of occasions. The significance of the illustration given above is revealed in the following finding of the Tribunal: "I am of the view that Mr Aurang Zeb and Ms Zeb fabricated this aspect of their claim [ie exposure of drug dealing] in an attempt to bring themselves within the Convention. I am of the view that they believed that this would be successful because they were aware of a decision of the Tribunal in which a Pakistani applicant who claimed to have been an anti-drugs campaigner was found to be a refugee (N97/15001). I do not accept Mr Aurang Zeb's denial that he had seen this decision, nor his explanation for his wife's admission that they had seen the decision. Whilst I accept that Ms Zeb is under stress, I do not consider that this explains her statement that she and her husband had seen the decision, having been given a copy of it by the applicant in the case."