Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 464

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 464 AMARJEET SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1301 OF 1999 DRUMMOND, NORTH, MADGWICK JJ SYDNEY 3 MARCH 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1301 OF 1999

BETWEEN: AMARJEET SINGH

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: DRUMMOND, NORTH AND MADGWICK JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 3 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1301 OF 1999

BETWEEN: AMARJEET SINGH

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: DRUMMOND, NORTH AND MADGWICK JJ

DATE: 3 MARCH 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) MADGWICK J 1 The appellant, Mr Amarjeet Singh, appeals against the decision of a judge of this Court, given on 27 October 1999, by which the appellant's application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), given on 30 June 1999, was dismissed. In that decision, the Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the appellant refugee status. Factual background 2 The appellant is an Indian national of the Sikh faith, who arrived in Australia on 22 May 1997. His claim is that he fears persecution by the Indian authorities, more particularly the Punjabi authorities, and he fears the inability of the Indian Government adequately to control those authorities because of his involvement in the Sikh separatist movement. 3 The appellant explained to the Tribunal that in the early 1980s, while working in Dubai, he became a follower of a leading Sikh religious figure and thereafter took an active role in Sikh politics. Amongst other things, he claims to have been an active member of various organisations dedicated to the establishment of an independent Sikh state (although this, it seems, is no longer a goal to which the appellant subscribes). He organised party rallies, raised funds in Dubai and transmitted them to India, and engaged in the support of the poor, in a context which may have been one of gaining political support for the organisations that he himself supported. 4 The appellant claimed that in January 1994, after a major rally, he had been arrested, detained and tortured. He was only released after 20 days when his people arranged the paying of a bribe for him. In March 1995, he claimed a group of policemen with cars came to his parents' home to arrest him but he was able to escape by the back door. Further, he says that in May 1997 the police came to his parents' home, searched there for him and made threats. He says that he then felt that he had no other option but to leave the country. 5 He also claimed before the Tribunal that certain authorities had harassed members of his family because of his own involvement with the Sikh movement. In particular he suggested that in 1995 his father had been beaten so severely that it resulted in his subsequent paralysis and ultimately was the cause of his death in 1998. 6 As a result of these events, the appellant claimed that his family, for their own protection, had sought to dissociate themselves from him. This was achieved, the appellant suggested, by the publishing of a notice in the local newspaper disowning him. A copy of that notice was provided to the Tribunal. The hearing before the Tribunal 7 In the hearing before the Tribunal on 15 March 1999, the Tribunal member interviewed the appellant. In the interview, the Tribunal member raised with the appellant, among other things, the claim that his family had dissociated themselves from him by means of the newspaper advertisement. The Tribunal member clearly did not believe the appellant's contention that Sikhs who might have been at political risk in the Punjab could protect themselves simply by putting a notice in their local newspaper. The Tribunal member concluded the discussion during the hearing on that matter by stating "I attach no weight to that whatsoever". That claim by the appellant was not mentioned at all in the Tribunal's written reasons.