Wimalaratne v Minister for Immigration and Mutlicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1737

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wimalaratne v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1737 SENAKE SIRISENA WIMALARATNE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 863 OF 2000 RYAN, SUNDBERG and EMMETT JJ 29 NOVEMBER 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 863 OF 2000

BETWEEN: SENAKE SIRISENA WIMALARATNE

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: RYAN, SUNDBERG and EMMETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 29 NOVEMBER 2000

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 863 OF 2000

BETWEEN: SENAKE SIRISENA WIMALARATNE

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: RYAN, SUNDBERG and EMMETT JJ

DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND 1 The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who came to Australia on 22 November 1996. He lodged forms B and C of his application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 17 December 1996. In the form that concerned his claim to refugee status, the appellant said he left Sri Lanka "in fear of being persecuted" but said he would provide details later. He also said details would be provided later in response to questions concerning what he feared would happen if he returned to Sri Lanka, who he thought might harm him, and why he thought he would face harm. In relation to another question, he said he did not think protection would be provided to him in his country of origin, but that his explanation for this would be provided later. 2 On 21 January 1997 a Departmental officer wrote to the appellant stating that his application had been received and was being given attention. The letter also said that if the appellant had any further information, it could be provided to the Department and would be taken into account in deciding the application. On 28 January another officer wrote to the appellant noting that his application stated that further information would be provided, and indicating that that information should be provided within 28 days. On 3 March the appellant lodged a detailed statement together with supporting material. On 18 November a delegate of the respondent, taking into account, amongst other things, all the material provided by the appellant, refused his application. The delegate's decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the bulk of the appellant's claims as to his experiences in Sri Lanka, but did not accept that the actions of the authorities were motivated by a Convention reason.