Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 857

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 857 MIGRATION – application for protection visa – s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – requirement on tribunal to give certain information to the applicant - whether information referred to by the tribunal was specifically about "another person" or was just about a class of persons of which the other person is a member. HARJIT SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS S34 OF 2001 von DOUSSA J ADELAIDE 6 JULY 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S34 OF 2001

BETWEEN: HARJIT SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: von DOUSSA J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 JULY 2001

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Application dismissed. 2. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 26 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S34 OF 2001

BETWEEN: HARJIT SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: von DOUSSA J

DATE: 6 JULY 2001

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 25 January 2001. The tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant, who is a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 10 July 2000. On 14 August 2000 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the Department). The decision of the delegate to refuse the protection visa was made on 30 August 2000. 2 Only one ground for review is raised, which concerns the application of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to information to which the tribunal had regard in reaching its decision. The applicant contends that the tribunal failed to provide information in writing to the applicant as required by that section in advance of the tribunal hearing, and that accordingly a procedure required by the Act was not observed, that being a ground for review provided for in s 476(1)(a) of the Act. 3 Before turning to that ground, it is necessary to outline the basis of the applicant's case before the tribunal and the tribunal's reasons for decision. 4 In its reasons for decision, the tribunal first set out Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) which defines a refugee, and considered the law relating to the interpretation and application of that definition in Australia. The applicant does not allege any error by the tribunal in that part of its decision. 5 The tribunal then set out the claims made by the applicant and the evidence available to it. The tribunal had the Department's file, including the applicant's protection visa application and ancillary documents, and his application for review. The applicant gave oral evidence before the tribunal on 9 January 2001. 6 In his application, the applicant indicated that he was single, a Sikh, born in the Punjab in 1971. He said that he lived in the Punjab until he went to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 1993. He said he communicated in his native tongue of Punjabi, and could read and write in English. He had completed his secondary schooling in 1990, and undertaken the first year of a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1992. In the UAE he had worked for Everest Rent A Car as a guide and driver since March 1993. In response to questions in the application form asking why he could not return to India and what he would fear might happen to him if he did, he said that in 1988 whilst at school he became a member of the All India Sikh Student Federation (SSF). In pursuit of activities with that organisation, he was detained and ill treated by the police on two occasions, once in June 1989 and again in about May 1992. As a consequence of his treatment he left Punjab and travelled via Bombay to the UAE. He said that in the UAE he met Kamagata Maru Dal (KMD) members, and he started taking part in meetings of KMD supporters. They advised him he should go to India and meet high profile members of the KMD. He said that he arrived in India on 31 May 2000 and the police raided his home on 3 June 2000. The police told his father they wanted him: "due to pending political old cases to involve me in false cases of spreading terror in Punjab as they came to know somehow that I came to the village and also members of KAMAGATA MARU DAL, International."