Mohamed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 914

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mohamed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 914

NAGOOR ADUMAI PASHAL MOHAMED v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 918 OF 2000 NORTH J 1 JUNE 2001 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 918 OF 2000

BETWEEN: NAGOOR ADUMAI PASHAL MOHAMED

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 1 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Leave to amend the application to include claims under s 476(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is refused. 2. The applicant's claim is dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application save as to the costs of the hearing on 1 June 2001. 4. There be no order as to costs of the hearing on 1 June 2001. 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 V 918 OF 2000

BETWEEN: NAGOOR ADUMAI PASHAL MOHAMED

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 1 JUNE 2001

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the court is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 6 October 2000. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, to refuse a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant was born on 2 July 1961. He is a Sri Lankan National, Tamil by race and Muslim by religion. He arrived in Australia on 20 July 1996. The applicant claimed a fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, imputed political opinion, nationality and religion. The claims on the material before the Tribunal were set out by the Tribunal under the heading "Claims and Evidence". It is unnecessary to repeat those matters, except for one passage which describes the central incident on which the applicant relied and which is relevant to part of the argument to be considered later. That passage is: "The Applicant signed a statement of claims on 24 June 1997. Another name had been used on this statement but it was corrected with liquid paper and the Applicant's name substituted. This statement related that the Applicant had undertaken courses in motor mechanics and a hotel course. He also ran a butcher's business. In this latter capacity, he had to travel to remote locations in order to buy cattle. On one occasion he and a worker were captured by the LTTE and taken into the forest. While he was detained there the LTTE used his lorry. He had refused to accompany them and so they had beaten him. The LTTE confiscated eight of the fifteen cattle he had on the truck. When he was released he took the lorry and went to Colombo. One of the conditions of his release was that he was to leave the lorry at a certain petrol station and return later to pick it up. After he took over his lorry again, he was stopped at a checkpoint. In the search that followed the officers found weapons which had been hidden in the truck and he was arrested. He was interrogated and tortured while he was in custody. He was suspected of being associated with the LTTE and so was placed on remand. His wife gave a large sum of money to a local parliamentarian to secure his release. However, about three or four weeks after his release, the police came looking for him again. People in the area also believed he had collaborated with the LTTE. To make matters worse, one of those taken by the LTTE with him, was not released and his family began to harass the Applicant."