Jalinous, Peyman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1602

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG1125 of 1998

BETWEEN: PEYMAN JALINOUS

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE: 10 DECEMBER 1998

PLACE: SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: This matter was listed for hearing today. The hearing was fixed on 3 November 1998 when Mr Jalinous appeared in person. I informed him at that time that the matter would proceed today. I understand from what has been said that he made some attempt to obtain legal assistance but was apparently unsuccessful. I do not know exactly what happened. Apparently on Tuesday last, Mr Jalinous made contact with Mr R Haralovic, a migration agent, and, through him, Mr Curran was instructed to appear today. Mr Curran has not had the opportunity to consider the decision in any detail. Mr Curran sought an adjournment of the matter today but I indicated I do not think it is appropriate to accede to that application. It is important that matters proceed on the day on which they are fixed, unless some event has occurred that makes it unfair to press on with a hearing. There is nothing before me to indicate that Mr Jalinous did everything open to him to have legal representation today by a person who had sufficient time to study the file. In refusing the adjournment, I took into account my view that, in any event, the application for review seems devoid of merit. I have considered the reasons of the Tribunal. They turn entirely upon matters of fact. Some of Mr Jalinous' claims were accepted, but the Tribunal concluded they did not indicate problems that would suggest there was a real chance of persecution for Convention reasons if Mr Jalinous was returned to Iran. In respect of other claims, particularly those involving an incident said to have occurred at Teheran University on 23 May 1998, the Tribunal member was unpersuaded of Mr Jalinous' account. He gave reasons for this. It is a question of fact as to whether Mr Jalinous did the things he claims to have done on that occasion. This is not a case, in my opinion, where the Tribunal member has failed to consider carefully the case put before him by the applicant for a protection visa. Nor is it a case where the member has failed to explain exactly why he made the findings that he did. The decision is a lengthy one and very comprehensive. My reaction to reading it is that it contains nothing that would give rise to even an arguable case on review. I took that into account, along with the lack of an explanation of the applicant's unreadiness to proceed today, in deciding the application for adjournment should be refused. When I indicated I was not prepared to adjourn the matter from today, I offered to stand the matter down for some time to enable Mr Curran to better acquaint himself with the decision and discuss it, if he wished, with his client and the migration agent. However, he indicated to me he did not think any good purpose would be served by that, that nothing could be put on behalf of his client today. That being so, I have not called upon the solicitor for the respondent. There is no case put before the Court for him to meet. In my view the proper order is that the application be dismissed with costs. I so order. I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox