Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Aslanpour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1533
FAHIMEH ASLANPOUR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 844 of 2000 MATHEWS J 24 OCTOBER 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N844 OF 2000
BETWEEN: FAHIMEH ASLANPOUR
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MATHEWS J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's 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 N844 OF 2000
BETWEEN: FAHIMEH ASLANPOUR
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MATHEWS J
DATE: 24 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 3 July 2000 in which the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the respondent's delegate to refuse the applicant a protection visa. 2 In order to be eligible for a protection visa an applicant must show that he or she has a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in his or her country of nationality. In this case Mrs Aslanpour says that she has a well founded fear of persecution in Iran by reason of her political opinion. 3 Mrs Aslanpour arrived in Australia from Iran on 15 July 1999 accompanied by her daughter. She had left Tehran two days earlier. On 27 August 1999 she and her daughter applied for a protection visa. A lengthy statement accompanied Mrs Aslanpour's application, setting out the details of her claim. On 21 February 2000 an interview took place between Mrs Aslanpour and the Minister's delegate in which she was assisted by a Farsi interpreter. On 28 February 2000 her application was refused by the delegate. On 23 March 2000 she applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision. An interview took place between the Tribunal member and Mrs Aslanpour on 26 June 2000. The Tribunal's decision was given a week later, on 3 July. Her claim now relates to herself only as her daughter has moved to the USA. 4 Essentially, Mrs Aslanpour says that she has been a long time supporter of the Hezb-e-Mellat-eIran Party in Iran, sometimes described as the "Iran Nation Party". After the brutal killing of two of the party leaders in November 1998, a number of rallies and demonstrations took place in Tehran in which Mrs Aslanpour participated together with her son and her daughter. Her son was then a student at the University of Tehran. On the night of 8 July 1999 a student dormitory at the University of Tehran was attacked by security forces. Many students were killed and injured. There was widespread outrage in Iran about this event and further demonstrations and protests took place in Tehran over the next few days. Mrs Aslanpour and both her children participated in these rallies. She made sandwiches, she said, for the protesters as did other mothers whose children were involved in the rallies. 5 Mrs Aslanpour had already planned to travel to Australia with her daughter on 13 July 1999. They left Iran as planned on that date. Her intention at the time, she said, was to visit her sister in Australia and then return to Tehran. However, she later learnt from her husband that shortly after her departure both he and their son were arrested for participating in the July 1999 demonstrations. Her husband had in fact been out of Tehran during these demonstrations and he satisfied the authorities that he had not participated in them, thus gaining his release. However Mrs Aslanpour said that their son was still held by the Iranian authorities. Moreover, her husband told her that she also had been blacklisted and would be arrested on her return. She therefore feared persecution on the ground of her political opinion. 6 The Tribunal did not accept Mrs Aslanpour's evidence on several crucial issues. It pointed out that there were a number of significant inconsistencies between claims made by Mrs Aslanpour in statements provided to the delegate and the Tribunal and in her evidence before the Tribunal. It did not accept that she or her family had suffered any repercussions as a result of the July 1999 demonstrations. It noted that the role played by Mrs Aslanpour and her children in those demonstrations was no greater than that played by thousands of others who participated in them. The Tribunal made the following finding; "Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant attended the July demonstrations it cannot be satisfied that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution arising from these demonstrations. By her own admission
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate