Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 768

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 768

BALBIR SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 127 OF 2001 HELY J 22 JUNE 2001 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 127 OF 2001

BETWEEN: BALBIR SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 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 127 OF 2001

BETWEEN: BALBIR SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE: 22 JUNE 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of India and is a Sikh from the Punjab region. He left India legally via New Delhi on 14 July 1998 and arrived in Australia on 16 July 1998 travelling on a visitor's visa. On 30 July 1998 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa. On 18 December 2000 the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant seeks a review of that decision. The grounds of the application, as stated in the application for an order of review, are: 1 procedures that were required by the Act or the Regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed: s 476(1)(a); 2 the decision involved an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the Tribunal: s 476(1)(e); 3 there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision: s 476(1)(g). No particulars were given of any of these grounds, nor did the applicant comply with an order made by the Registrar on 8 March 2001 that the applicant should file and serve an outline of submissions three working days prior to the hearing date. 3 The applicant was not represented at the hearing, and he addressed me through an interpreter. Nothing which he told me came anywhere near establishing the existence of any reviewable error on the part of RRT. The essential thrust of what he put to me was that he did not get justice before RRT, and that his life is at risk anywhere in India should he be forced to return. 4 In the applicant's protection visa application of 17 July 1998 he said that he left India because he was "under constant pressure by Indian authorities in relation to my political activities". Those activities arose from his membership of the Sikh community. He was "an active member" of Sikh groups and was watched all the time by "Indian security forces". He was beaten by the Indian authorities "in order I confess for something which I did not know". He fears to return to India because he will be "subjected to even worse tortures" by the Indian security forces. 5 In the Refugee Review Tribunal application for review of 13 November 1998 the applicant says that he applied for refugee status because he was a freedom fighter who had gone through "countless amount of pain and humiliation" at the hands of Indian authorities and others who were opposed to self-determination for Sikhs. He said that he was "an active member" of the Khalistan movement and that he was "arrested, beaten, harassed by Indian authorities for a long time". He fears persecution "because authorities knew I am an activist for Khalistan cause". 6 The applicant attended a hearing before RRT. The transcript of the hearing is not before me but RRT refers to claims made at the hearing in its reasons for decision. At the hearing the applicant stated that whilst he was not an elected leader of any Sikh organisation, his involvement with the movement commenced in about 1984 and consisted of his attending meetings and sometimes distributing posters and pamphlets. He had never become a member of any Sikh organisations, but was "supporting them". He stated that he was arrested in January 1998 after he made a speech at a festival, and that he was thereafter detained for twenty days. After he was released, his injuries were so bad that he was bedridden for two to three months. Prior to his arrest in January 1998, he had been arrested "two to three times". These matters were not referred to in his original application. 7 At the hearing, the applicant agreed that the human rights situation in the Punjab had improved, "but not for people like us, who had been arrested". 8 RRT had before it letters from Dr Rainer Dressler and Dr Jamie Crowe, apparently well-qualified medical practitioners. Dr Dressler examined Mr Singh on 28 August 2000 and found evidence of multiple burn marks/scars on his arms and legs which Mr Singh told the doctor were inflicted by Indian police during February 1998 whilst being tortured. The doctor was also of the opinion that "he may be suffering from depression" – a condition which Mr Singh stated was a consequence of the injuries which had been inflicted upon him. Dr Crowe examined Mr Singh on 1 September 2000. He reported that he was suffering from headaches and "possible depression". 9 It was put to the applicant at the hearing that he had failed to mention the burn scars and marks on his arms and legs in his protection visa application, hence his claims in that respect were "implausible" and "a recent invention". In response Mr Singh is alleged to have stated: "I didn't because they didn't ask me." 10 RRT had independent country information before it which it had previously forwarded to Mr Singh under cover of a letter which informed him that this material may be used to decide his case. It is not easy to summarise that material. The finding which RRT made on the basis of it is as follows: "The Tribunal accepts that the period of serious human rights abuses by the Punjab security forces ended in 1993-1994. The above-cited independent evidence demonstrates that the human rights situation in the Punjab has improved greatly since that time. It also indicates that Sikhs can safely relocate elsewhere in India. The Tribunal was unable to locate any references to any persecution of AISSF members in any Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch publications in the twelve months prior to the hearing before the Tribunal, and any reference of harassment of AISSF members in the Punjab or other parts of India in the world newspaper database of NEXIS. And no reference was found to AISSF or Sikh persecution in the Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch annual reports for 1996-1998. This would indicate that this leading militant Sikh organisation is no longer suffering persecution in Punjab or other parts of India, and that it did not suffer persecution in 1996, 1997 and 1998. This would suggest to the Tribunal that a substantial and durable change in conditions has occurred in the Punjab since 1994 which removes any reasonably foreseeable risk to the applicant."