Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1653

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1653

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 followed Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 followed Kalala v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1594 considered DEEP SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS S 63 of 2001 MANSFIELD J ADELAIDE 27 NOVEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY S 63 OF 2001

BETWEEN: DEEP SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER: 27 NOVEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE (HEARD IN DARWIN)

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY S 63 OF 2001

BETWEEN: DEEP SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 27 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE: ADELAIDE (HEARD IN DARWIN)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 10 April 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent of 9 July 1998 to refuse to grant to the applicant a protection visa for which he had applied under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). 2 The applicant is a national of India. He was born on 12 July 1972 in the Punjab region of India and is of Sikh ethnicity and of Sikh religion. He is married. 3 The applicant arrived in Australia on 26 May 1998, with his wife. He was travelling on an Indian passport issued in his name on 23 August 1995. He acknowledged to the Tribunal that he falsely claimed that the purpose of that travel was for a honeymoon following his marriage shortly beforehand. Its purpose was to secure entry to Australia to apply for a protection visa. On 30 June 1998 he applied for a protection visa under the Act. To be eligible to be granted that visa, it was necessary for the delegate of the respondent, and on review the Tribunal, to be satisfied that the prescribed criteria for that visa had been satisfied: s 65(1) of the Act. Relevantly for present purposes, that meant that the delegate of the respondent, and on review the Tribunal, had to be satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (the Convention): s 36(2) of the Act. In practical terms, the satisfaction referred to had to be that the applicant is a refugee as defined in Article 1A(2) of the Convention, namely a person who: "… owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; …"