Aftis v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1395

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Aftis v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1395

RAMADANE AFTIS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS S103 of 2001

FINN J ADELAIDE 3 OCTOBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S103 OF 2001

BETWEEN: RAMADANE AFTIS

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 OCTOBER 2001

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 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 S103 OF 2001

BETWEEN: RAMADANE AFTIS

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 3 OCTOBER 2001

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, Ramadane Aftis, is an Algerian National whose application under the Migration Act 1958 for a protection visa was refused by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). He put forward three particular claims why he feared persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. These were: "That the Algerian Government would persecute him because he failed to respond to a call up notice issued in late 2000; That he would be persecuted because of his Berber ethnicity; and That because he had been conscripted into the Algerian army, he was at risk of persecution by Islamic terrorists and the Algerian government would fail to protect him." All three claims were rejected by the Tribunal for reasons related, variously, to credibility, inconsistency with country information and to not demonstrating persecutory conduct in fact. 2 Mr Aftis now applies to this Court for an order of review. While he had legal assistance in preparing his submission to the Tribunal such was not the case with his present application at which he appeared in person. For understandable reasons his application did not identify expressly a ground of review under s 476(1) of the Migration Act. It merely reiterated two of his three claims to refugee status. 3 I have explained to Mr Aftis the limits to what a judge can properly do in assisting an unrepresented litigant to ascertain his or her own rights. I similarly have explained to him the very limited basis upon which this Court could interfere with a decision of the Tribunal. I will refer to this matter below. 4 Mr Aftis made submissions at the hearing. What he did was to reiterate the three claims that he had made before the Tribunal. He challenged the correctness of the Tribunal's findings and its understanding of the situation that obtained in Algeria both in relation to the conditions of Berbers and to terrorist attacks on former conscripts. Both of these matters are mentioned below.