Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1114

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1114 BALJINDER SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Matter No S 60 of 2001 von DOUSSA J ADELAIDE 3 AUGUST 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 60 OF 2001

BETWEEN: BALJINDER SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: von DOUSSA J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 60 OF 2001

BETWEEN: BALJINDER SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: von DOUSSA J

DATE: 3 AUGUST 2001

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 30 March 2001. The applicant is a citizen of Fiji. He was born on 26 April 1973. He arrived in Australia on 23 April 2000. The applicant is of Indian ethnicity and of the Sikh religion. He had come to Australia to be present at a family wedding. Whilst he was in Australia, the May 2000 coup led by Mr Speight occurred. 2 On 6 June 2000 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa on the basis that he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Refugee Convention as defined in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). On 18 October 2000, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused to grant a protection visa. That led to an application to the Refugee Review Tribunal to review that decision, an application which was unsuccessful. 3 The application to this Court is made on the basis that there are two grounds for review under s 476 of the Act. The first ground alleged is that an error of law occurred within the meaning of s 476(1)(e). The second ground is a no‑evidence ground alleged under s 476(1)(g). Both these grounds are said to arise by reason of the following passage which occurred in the reasons for decision of the Tribunal. "In relation to the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the Tribunal finds the fact that no indication of the applicant's condition was mentioned either in the initial Protection Visa application or in the Tribunal application and the fact that this aspect only came to the surface after the Tribunal decided it would not grant a deferment of the hearing requested on the grounds of needing to obtain more evidence, impugns the applicant's credibility, especially given that the initial doctor's letter indicated a commencement of treatment. The applicant's answer to the question of why he had not sought medical help until December 2000 was unconvincing as it did not explain why an illness which was, by the applicant's own account, due to traumatic experiences undergone in 1993, would not have been dealt with earlier either in Fiji or in Australia."