Hernandez v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 725

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hernandez v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 725

MIGRATION – review of a decision of Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant a protection visa – no material error of law shown in Tribunal's reasons. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Ahmed v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 506 Randhawa v Minister for Immigration , Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 Bains v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 403 CHRISTIAM ALBERT HERNANDEZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NO. N 388 OF 2001 JUDGE: BEAUMONT J DATE: 14 JUNE 2001 PLACE: SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 388 OF 2001

BETWEEN: CHRISTIAM ALBERTO HERNANDEZ P.

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J

DATE OF ORDER: 14 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed, with 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 N 388 OF 2001

BETWEEN: CHRISTIAM ALBERTO HERNANDEZ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J

DATE: 14 JUNE 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J:

INTRODUCTION 1 This is an application under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 28 March 2001. That decision affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 2 The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, arrived in Australia on 28 February 1999. On 15 January 2001, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs under the Act. He claimed to fear persecution in Colombia on the basis that his father, a landowner and businessman in Colombia, had been the target of attempts to extort money by a guerilla organisation, known as the 53rd Front of FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) ("FARC"). 3 The applicant had previously had the benefit of some legal assistance from a solicitor in drafting an amended application. However, at the hearing, the applicant was unrepresented, and appeared with the assistance of an interpreter. 4 By his amended application, the applicant stated the grounds of his claim for judicial review as follows: "1. The applicant is not in agreement with the decision of the Tribunal because it is only by the grace of God that the applicant and his family have not suffered so far. It is easy to say from outside Colombia that there is safety but the fact is that there is a lot of danger in that country. 2. The documents provided to the Tribunal clearly show that the applicant's father faced a risk of persecution for political reasons. The Anti-Kidnap Group is the highest authority on these matters and it would not have issued the documents if it had not investigated the case and come to the firm conclusion that the applicant's father had a fear of persecution because of political opposition to the FARC. 3. The Tribunal should have investigated the matter further through the website of the Anti-Kidnap Group which would show that the applicant's fears are well-founded". 5 The applicant did not file written submissions but made some oral submissions during the hearing, which essentially repeated the claims made in the amended application. The respondent made some oral submissions based on written submissions which had previously been provided to the Court.