Arudselvan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1726

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Arudselvan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 1726

MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for protection visa – whether RRT must address every factual intention or argument on its written reasons Chan Yee Kin v Minister (1989) 169 CLR 379 mentioned AJIT PRABAHARAN ARUDSELVAN v MINISTER FOR IMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NO. N 922 OF 1999 FRENCH, HEEREY AND LINDGREN JJ 12 NOVEMBER 1999 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N922 OF 1999

BETWEEN: AJIT PRABAHARAN ARUDSELVAN

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: FRENCH, HEEREY and LINDGREN JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 12 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs. 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 N922 OF 1999

BETWEEN: AJIT PRABAHARAN ARUDSELVAN

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: FRENCH, HEEREY and LINDGREN JJ

DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT: 1 The appellant is a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity. He arrived in Australia as a visitor in July 1996 followed by his parents in August. They all applied for protection visas on 11 October 1996. On 10 September 1997 a delegate of the respondent refused their application. The Refugee Review Tribunal confirmed that decision on 20 November 1998. Before the delegate and the RRT, the appellant claimed that he satisfied the Convention definition of refugee in that he had a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of his race and/or his political opinion. 2 The factual claims made by the appellant and the evidence said to support them can be summarised as follows: (a) The appellant was born in Colombo in 1971 but following the anti-Tamil riots in September 1983 he was sent with his brother and sister to a boarding school in Jaffna, staying there until January 1985. While in Jaffna his school hostel was raided by the army and he was detained for three days, assaulted and abused; (b) Between his return to Colombo in January 1985 and the beginning of 1993 the police would regularly check Tamil houses with the result that he and his brother were often detained for questioning whenever there was an incident in Jaffna or Colombo. They were abused but not assaulted; (c) Following the assassination of President Premadasa on 11 May 1993, the appellant and his brother were arrested and, with other Tamil youths, detained in custody for three days and tortured by police; (d) After the LTTE attacked the oil storage tanks at Kolonnawa in Colombo in October 1995 the appellant was taken in for questioning again. He was questioned about any involvement he had with the LTTE and released after a day as a result of his employer bribing the police; (e) After the bombing of the Central Bank in Colombo on 31 January 1996 the appellant was again detained. A friend and former tutor of the appellant, who worked at the Central Bank and for whom the appellant had arranged lodgings with a neighbour, had not reported for work the day after the bombing. There was a police raid and the appellant and his father were taken into custody at the Wellawatte police station where the appellant was assaulted with fists and boots and his father was also assaulted. They were held for three days after which a Muslim neighbour bribed a senior police officer to secure their release on condition they report to the police every day; (f) When the appellant went to report to the police station on 10 February 1996 he was questioned about his former tutor. When he said he did not know anything he was kicked, punched and continually slapped. He was taken to a prison. He was released on 23 May 1996 after he arranged to bribe police and court officials; (g) On 24 June 1996 plain clothes police officers visited a neighbour and questioned him about the appellant. The neighbour warned the appellant's family that he suspected the appellant would be taken into custody again concerning the bombing. The appellant and his family decided to leave their home immediately and go into hiding. Through the assistance of an "agent" they were able to leave the country by bribing customs and immigration officials. They travelled on documents in their own names.