Bejandi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1519

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bejandi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1519

MIGRATION – application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") – applicant is a citizen of Iran – Tribunal rejected applicant's claims – no real chance pf persecution – alleged inaccuracy in Tribunal decision – no error of principle or law – whether Tribunal fell into error RASOUL HASSAN ZADEH BEJANDI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS S 7 of 2001 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY (By video conference) 28 OCTOBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 7 OF 2001

BETWEEN: RASOUL HASSAN ZADEH BEJANDI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 28 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

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

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 7 OF 2001

BETWEEN: RASOUL HASSAN ZADEH BEJANDI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J

DATE: 28 OCTOBER 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY (By Video Conference)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Iran who arrived in Australia on 27 November 1999. In April 2000 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Department") under the Migration Act (1958) (Cth) ("the Act"). He claimed to be a refugee in accordance with the definition in Article 1(A) of 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"). On 13 October 2000 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") refused the application for a protection visa. On 19 October 2000 the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of that decision. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 12 December 2000, and its decision was given on 21 December 2000. 2 The Tribunal reviewed the claims and evidence of the application and noted that the applicant, at that time, was a 22-year old man from Tehran, Iran. The Tribunal had regard to extensive country information concerning the position in Iran with respect to a number of matters, including political opinion and illegal departures from the country. 3 The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not successful in establishing a claim that his inability to marry his non-Muslim girlfriend was persecutory and would lead him to having a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal set out its reasons within which there was also reference by the Tribunal to student demonstrations which the applicant claimed to have been involved in. Although the Tribunal took this into account it found that the applicant was not a student and had no role in organising the demonstrations and that even if he had been identified by the authorities as partaking in the rallies, he would have been quickly released following any arrest or detention. 4 The Tribunal also considered the question of the applicant's visit to the Israeli Embassy in Turkey and found that this did not give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reasons. So far as his claimed lack of belief in Islam was concerned, the Tribunal also formed an adverse view in relation to this claim, finding that a lack of belief in Islam on the part of the applicant would not give rise to a real chance of persecution, nor would his alleged illegal departure from Iran. It did not accept that the actions of the applicant in relation to his involvement in demonstrations whilst detained in Australia would give rise to a real chance of persecution should he return to Iran. The Tribunal concluded that it had reviewed all the evidence and found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. 5 On the application to the Court the applicant raised a considerable number of questions of fact relating to his dissatisfaction with findings made by the Tribunal and what he claimed to be inaccuracies in a number of statements in the Tribunal decision. I am not satisfied, having considered these statements, that they disclose any error of principle or of law that would justify reviewing and setting aside, or modifying, the decision of the Tribunal. 6 There were several matters which were specifically raised by the applicant in relation to the alleged inaccuracies, including certain missing documents which were the subject of an affidavit by the applicant, sworn and filed on 8 August 2002. There is no specific evidence as to the contents of the documents, or as to whether they would or would not substantially assist the case of the applicant. The documents were not before the Tribunal and it is not possible to ascertain whether they would have assisted materially the case advanced by the applicant. 7 The applicant has also questioned the accuracy of the interpretation made by the interpreter during the course of the hearing before the Tribunal. I note that in the affidavit of 8 August 2002 the applicant sets out the mistakes which he alleged had been made by the Tribunal and there is nothing in that affidavit to indicate that there were any specific, material errors in relation to translation or interpretation. Indeed, considering that affidavit, there is no mention, so far as I can see, of any alleged misinterpretation and certainly no indication of any specific objection. 8 There were some references by the applicant on the hearing this morning to what he claims to have been errors in interpretation, but I am not satisfied that any such error of significance has been made out as to warrant a review of the decision by the Tribunal. It is also stated and was mentioned by Mr Charman, who was previously briefed by the applicant in this matter and who has been good enough to attend the hearing this morning in order to assist the Court, that the applicant had been under some psychiatric treatment and that maybe an adjournment was an appropriate course in these circumstances. 9 Having heard the applicant give a detailed explanation as to what he contends were errors in the decision of the Tribunal, and also taking into account that he had obviously heard the tape of the hearing before the Tribunal, and considered it in detail, I am satisfied that the applicant has had every chance to fully express his case before the Court and I do not think that an adjournment is an appropriate course in these circumstances. 10 In conclusion, I do not think it can be said in this matter, that any basis has been shown for reviewing the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly I dismiss the application with costs.