Tahavoori v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1245

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tahavoori v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1245 MOHAMMED REZA TAHAVOORI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS W 65 OF 2001 EMMETT J 31 JULY 2001 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 65 OF 2001

BETWEEN: MOHAMMED REZA TAHAVOORI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 JULY 2001

WHERE MADE: PERTH

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

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 65 OF 2001

BETWEEN: MOHAMMED REZA TAHAVOORI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 31 JULY 2001

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Iran. He arrived in Australian in November 2000 and applied for a protection (Class XA) visa on 14 November 2000. On 7 December 2000 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister"), made a decision refusing the application for a protection visa. An application for review of that decision was lodged with the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") on 8 December 2000. On 19 February 2000 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. On 7 March 2001 the applicant filed an application for an order for review of that decision with this Court.

THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS 2 The applicant has made a number of claims to justify his application for a protection visa. He was interviewed shortly after his arrival in Australia because he did not have a passport. He said that he had left Iran around late September 2000 travelling to Dubai by boat without a passport. In Dubai he had been given a Turkish passport, which he had used to travel to Indonesia. 3 When asked why he had left Iran, he said that his life had been in danger. He said that he had been a driver for a major in the Sepah Pasdaran (the Revolutionary Guards) and had become friendly with the major's daughter. He said that he had been arrested with her at a party around May 1999. Alcohol had been found in his possession and he had been detained for four months for drinking and for being with an unmarried woman. He said that he had been beaten and forced to stand in uncomfortable positions. When he had been released, he had been sent to Shoor Abad (near Qom) in the desert. He said that he had started seeing the major's daughter again and had slept with her. He said that in about July 2000 his father had been arrested and he had had to run away. He said that he would be killed if he returned to Iran. 4 In a statement accompanying his original application for a protection visa, the applicant said that he had been a driver for a General, but he had mainly driven for the General's family. He said that in this fashion he had met the General's daughter. He had invited her to a party at the end of April 1999. He said that he had drunk alcohol at the party, which had been raided. When the police found that he worked for the Sepah, he had been handed over to the Intelligence Section of the Sepah, where he had been interrogated and beaten. 5 The applicant was interviewed by the primary decision-maker on 18 November 2000 in connection with his application. The primary decision-maker asked the applicant if everything he had put in his application for a protection visa was true and correct as far as he knew. The applicant said that it was. In a submission to the Tribunal dated 18 January 2000 the applicant's representatives referred to general principles regarding the assessment of credibility and said that once the applicant was found to be credible he should be found to be a refugee. They said that the Tribunal should find that the applicant had been tortured because he had been given 50 lashes. They referred to information in relation to human rights abuses in Iran, including unfair trials, the use of torture and the use of punishments such as flogging, stoning and the mutilation of limbs. They did not explain how their submissions related to any of the Convention grounds. 6 In a handwritten letter in English submitted to the Tribunal on 31 December 2001, the applicant said that his statement was incomplete. He said that in the course of his work in the Sepah he had noticed some robberies that had been done by high ranking officers. He said that disclosing the robberies had created a dangerous situation for him and, as a result, he had fled to Bandar Abbas and from there to Australia. He said that anyone who came into conflict with the government in Iran was labelled 'political' and was arrested and tortured. He said that military personnel were not allowed to leave the country so that if he returned to Iran he would be treated as a spy. 7 At the hearing before the Tribunal, reference was made to his evidence that he had been a driver for a General in the Sepah but that mostly he had driven for the General's family. The applicant said that he had been a driver for the Sepah and that he had also been a member of the Sepah. He denied that he had said that mostly he had driven for the General's family. He said that he had only done this occasionally. The Tribunal's reasons disclose that it was put to the applicant that he had said in the statement accompanying his original application that he had mostly driven for the General's family and that this was how he had met the General's daughter. 8 The applicant said to the Tribunal member that he wanted to tell him that he did not have a problem with the General and his family, he had a problem with the Sepah. He had not wanted to stay with the Sepah because of thefts and money laundering. The Tribunal conceded that the applicant's evidence, when he was initially interviewed in his original application and again when he was interviewed by the primary decision-maker, was relatively consistent. However, the Tribunal considered that at the hearing before the Tribunal his evidence was confused and contradictory.