WACX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1538

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WACX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1538

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 474

NAAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 applied WACX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

W149 of 2002 CARR J 11 DECEMBER 2002 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 149 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: WACX

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: CARR J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 DECEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 W 149 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: WACX

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: CARR J

DATE: 11 DECEMBER 2002

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

introduction 1 This is an appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate given on 10 May 2002. His Honour dismissed the appellant's application, filed on 14 December 2001, for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 7 December 2001, affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

the appellant's claims 2 The appellant's claims to be entitled to protection as a refugee were set out in the Tribunal's reasons. They were also set out at some length in his Honour's reasons. There is no need to repeat the details of the claims, but I will summarise them. 3 The appellant is a citizen of Iran. His claim for refugee status was based primarily on persecution feared by him by reason of imputed political opinion. The appellant feared that he would suffer persecution for reasons of his involvement with a political candidate, which included providing that candidate with material which might damage significant political figures in the Iranian regime. 4 The Tribunal did not believe the appellant. It found that he had fabricated his claims after his initial arrival interview. It gave its reasons for that conclusion which were principally based upon inconsistencies between answers which the appellant had given at that interview and information which he had given subsequently. The Tribunal referred to the appellant's work history. It disbelieved certain aspects of his evidence in that regard. In particular it did not accept that the appellant had been sacked from the Iranian Ministry of Agriculture because police files on him had been found. The Tribunal reviewed certain other matters which led it to the conclusion that the appellant had not come to the adverse attention of the authorities, as he had claimed, before his departure from Iran. The Tribunal also found that the appellant had left Iran openly, by air, and using a passport in his own name.