Satheeskumar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1285

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Satheeskumar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1285 IMMIGRATION – Necessity for court "to attempt really to understand … what the Tribunal's reasons were." Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Paramananthan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 160 ALR 24, followed Sellamuthu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 247, distinguished

ARUMUGAM SATHEESKUMAR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 197 OF 1999 SYDNEY WILCOX, TAMBERLIN AND MADGWICK JJ 23 AUGUST 1999 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 197 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE COURT

BETWEEN: ARUMUGAM SATHEESKUMAR

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: WILCOX, TAMBERLIN AND MADGWICK JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 23 AUGUST 1999

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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 N 197 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE COURT

BETWEEN: ARUMUGAM SATHEESKUMAR

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: WILCOX, TAMBERLIN AND MADGWICK JJ

DATE: 15 SEPTEMBER 1999

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 At the conclusion of argument in this matter, we ordered that the appeal be dismissed. We indicated we would publish reasons at a later date. These are our reasons. Nature of proceedings 2 The appellant, Arumugam Satheskumar, appeals from a decision of a judge of this Court dismissing his application for the limited form of judicial review available under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal to refuse him a protection visa. The appellant's claims 3 The appellant is a Sri Lankan Tamil who arrived in Australia in August 1998. He was then aged 26. He comes from Vavuniya on the Jaffna Peninsula. 4 At the airport, his account was that he feared PLOTE, an armed Tamil political organisation opposed to the LTTE (the well-known "Tamil Tigers"). The appellant said he particularly feared them because he had friends in TELO, another organisation opposed to the LTTE but a rival organisation to PLOTE. He also claimed to have been harassed by the Sri Lankan Army, which would not let him go to Colombo. Army personnel had detained him for a period of 3 days and kicked his backside and slapped his face. The police too had detained him a few times. On occasions, junior police officers had slapped his face. He claimed the Army and the police paid him attention because of suspicions that he was a member of the LTTE. The appellant said he had come to Australia to escape "all these problems". He said that he had been told by the Sri Lankan person, who had organised his departure and, among other things, furnished him with false travel documents, to lie and say that he had been tortured; but he asserted he had told the interviewing officer the truth. 5 On later occasions, the appellant adhered to the essence of this account. The Refugee Review Tribunal member seized on various differences in the detail of his story and entirely disbelieved the claims that he feared the PLOTE. Differences were apparent and the Tribunal had the advantage of seeing and hearing the appellant. Despite possible misgivings, there is no role for the Court in such matters, absent error of law or statutorily required procedure. This was accepted before us by the appellant's solicitor, Mr Karp. 6 On behalf of the appellant, a migration agent submitted to the Tribunal: "The applicant has been persecuted by government authorities due to his race and imputed political opinion. The applicant had been forced to hide in order to escape being arrested by the agent of the government. This suggests that the applicant did in fact have an adverse political profile. … Young Tamils from Vavuniya often experience persecution for their race and political opinion. There is a strong body of evidence which demonstrates that youths in this situation are experiencing persecution. The evidence shows that government agents are involved in killing and torturing Tamils who they suspect; and this position has not been affected significantly since our client's departure. According to the Amnesty international reports 1998, during the January -December 1997 period 'Thousands of Tamil people were arrested, including scores of possible prisoners of conscience. Torture and ill treatment in army and police custody were widespread. Approximately 80 Tamil civilians were reported to have 'disappeared'. Three were killed in prison. The LTTE, an armed opposition group, was responsible for grave human rights abuses, including the killing of two members of parliament'.