U v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 364

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

U v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 364

MOE U v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V941 of 2000 NORTH J 16 MARCH 2001 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V941 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MOE U

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 MARCH 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's cost of and incidental to the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V941 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MOE U

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 16 MARCH 2001

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

introduction 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 23 October 2000. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, to refuse to grant a protection visa to Mr U, the applicant.

background and claims 2 The applicant is a citizen of Burma who arrived in Australia on 26 March 1999. He made various claims of a fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, based upon what he claimed was his active opposition to the military dictatorship in Burma. In a comprehensive decision, the Tribunal rejected that part of his claim based on his alleged activities in Burma prior to his entry into Australia. 3 It is not necessary for the purposes of this application to traverse the lengthy claims and evidence considered, and the conclusions reached, by the Tribunal in respect of all the issues. It suffices to say that the Tribunal found the applicant to be an unsatisfactory witness and rejected the evidence which he gave. 4 This review, however, is centred upon a different aspect of the applicant's claim. Before the Tribunal he also claimed that he would face persecution because of political activities undertaken since his arrival in Australia. 5 There was evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant had attended approximately six demonstrations in Canberra and Sydney (including a demonstration outside the Burmese Eembassy mbassy in Canberra in September 1999), that he had handed out pamphlets at a street stall in Sydney in July 2000 and that he had read the news at the Burmese community radio station. He also claimed to be a member of the Friends of the National League for Democracy in Australia (FNLDA), a member of a FNLDA subcommittee, a member of the Free Burma Action Committee and a member of the Burmese Community Broadcasting Group.