Khomeiran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1374

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Khomeiran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1374 PEJMAN AKBARI KHOMEIRAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS W309 of 2001 FINN J PERTH 20 SEPTEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERTH DISTRICT REGISTRY W309 OF 2001

BETWEEN: PEJMAN AKBARI KHOMEIRAN

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 SEPTEMBER 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

PERTH DISTRICT REGISTRY W309 OF 2001

BETWEEN: PEJMAN AKBARI KHOMEIRAN

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 20 SEPTEMBER 2001

PLACE: PERTH

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 There are two matters before me today. The first is an application by Mr Khomeiran for a reference under Order 80 of the Federal Court Rules and a consequential adjournment of the case, and, secondly, the application for an order of review. Considering first the Order 80 reference application, it is the case that after a directions hearing on 10 August Mr Khomeiran wrote a letter addressed to the court seeking such a reference. Unfortunately the letter was misdirected. It was only when telephone contact was made with the Court on 11 and then later 14 September 2001 that the registry became aware that an application had been made. 2 Mr Khomeiran's friend was informed orally, and then Mr Khomeiran himself was informed by facsimile letter, that at today's hearing he could apply to me for an Order 80 reference but that he would have to be prepared to present his case in any event. The course I have taken is to hear both his Order 80 application, and with it a consequential adjournment application if a reference is given, and argument on the application itself. For reasons which will become apparent, the case is not one in which an Order 80 reference should be made, and in consequence no adjournment should be ordered. 3 Turning now to the application itself, the applicant, Pejman Akbari Khomeiran, is a citizen of Iran. He arrived in Australia without a visa on 26 February 2001. On 13 March 2001 he made an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the "Migration Act"). A delegate of the respondent Minister having refused that application, Mr Khomeiran applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for an order of review under Part 8 of the Migration Act. 4 A written submission by the applicant's migration agent was later filed with the Tribunal. On 6 July 2001 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa. The application for judicial review presently before the court was filed on 17 July 2001. The grounds of the application were stated to be that: The Tribunal treated me unfairly. They did not pay attention to an enormous bulk of evidence that I presented to the Tribunal. They treated me with suspicion and one‑sided views both when the case officer interviewed me and in the Tribunal. They did not accept or they accepted with suspicion the translated materials that are translated by NATTI accredited translators. The member in RRT did not seem to be familiar with situation here. 5 At the directions hearing to which I referred earlier, the court directed that Mr Khomeiran file and serve a written statement setting out the reasons why he considered the decision of the Tribunal to be wrong. The court has recently received a facsimile document sent in compliance with that direction. It is set out in Schedule 1. As I will later indicate it does no more than dispute fact findings and their merits or point to matters said not to have been considered by the Tribunal. Neither the application nor this document identify any ground of review explicitly that is mentioned in section 476(1) of the Migration Act.