NAHT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 425

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAHT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 425 NAHT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 15 of 2003 BRANSON J 8 MAY 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 15 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAHT

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 8 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the application be dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 15 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAHT

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 8 MAY 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 The applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 9 April 2000 on a temporary business visa. On 4 May 2000 he lodged an application for a protection visa. This application was refused by a delegate of the respondent on 12 May 2000. The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of the decision of the delegate. On 11 December 2002 the Tribunal handed down a decision whereby it affirmed the decision of the delegate. The applicant has applied to the Court for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal.

Claims 2 The Tribunal in its written reasons for decision summarised the applicant's claims in the following way: '… He had a history of political activity since student days, opposing such issues as the oppressive behaviour by landlords and employers, official corruption and police brutality. As a result of this activity he had been arrested many times between 1979 and 2000, been detained for long periods and tortured. He had also lost his employment because of his Naxalite political activities. He was harassed and had been forced to leave home and move from hiding place to hiding place following police action against him about a banned book. None of his arrests had resulted in a trial, a conviction or an acquittal. He had given details of the charges. All were still pending. His action for wrongful dismissal has not proceeded because of bribes to court officials. As a result of the recent Ravindran incident, he was in fear of his life. Because of these experiences he had left India, requiring assistance from airport officials to obtain exit clearances and from other contacts, to obtain his visa. He feared that, if he returned to India he would be imprisoned and perhaps killed. … .' 3 Before the Tribunal the applicant confirmed that the above was a fair summary of his claims. He did not suggest otherwise in his submissions to the Court.