Harirchi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1576

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Harirchi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1576

NADER HARIRCHI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N W135 of 2001 SACKVILLE, KIEFEL & HELY JJ PERTH 7 NOVEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W135 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: NADER HARIRCHI

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: SACKVILLE, KIEFEL & HELY JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 7 NOVEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant 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 W135 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: NADER HARIRCHI

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: SACKVILLE, KIEFEL & HELY JJ

DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

the court: 1 This is an appeal against orders made by a Judge of this Court dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT"). On 31 October 2000, the RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant was represented by a migration agent before the RRT. He was legally represented in the proceedings determined by the primary Judge. The appellant's notice of appeal was, however, prepared without legal assistance and he has represented himself at the hearing of the appeal.

the appellant's claims 3 The appellant is an Iranian citizen, born in Teheran on 25 October 1963. He is a Shia Muslim and speaks the Farsi language. The appellant completed a tertiary education in Iran in 1993, obtaining an engineering certificate. Between 1993 and his departure from Iran in May 2000, he was employed as an industrial designer. 4 Before the RRT the appellant claimed that he had been denied access in Iran to further education and thus had been unable to obtain specialist qualifications. He claimed that, despite an excellent academic record, he has been refused admission to many colleges. Since he had never been given any explanation for his rejection, he had concluded that the authorities must have imputed a political opinion to him and discriminated against him for that reason. 5 The appellant claimed that in 1985 he had become acquainted with two members of the Mujahadeen, an organisation hostile to the Iranian regime. The appellant claimed that his aunt supported the two Mujahadeen and that, out of friendship, he had offered them practical support. The appellant said that he had not supported the Mujahadeen politically because of their religious orientation, but he had been sympathetic to them because of their opposition to the Iranian regime. 6 The appellant claimed that one of the Mujahadeen was arrested in 1987 and executed a short time thereafter. According to the appellant, his aunt had been detained for a period for two years and was released only after she began to co-operate with the authorities. The other Mujahadeen member was arrested and detained for two years. 7 The appellant said that for many years he continued to assist his friend, the surviving Mujahadeen member, and that he eventually gave his friend $500 to enable him to leave Iran. However, the friend was arrested prior to his departure and was still in prison at the time the appellant himself left Iran. 8 The appellant also claimed that his friend had removed from his (the appellant's) desk drawer six computer disks containing sensitive information, such as maps and army locations. The appellant claimed that he feared that the friend had copied those disks and that he was at risk of being punished by the authorities.