NAUQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1340

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAUQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [ 2003] FCA 1340 NAUQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS N 924 OF 2003 HELY J 21 NOVEMBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 924 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAUQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

KAREN SYNON

MEMBER REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

THE PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 NOVEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 924 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAUQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

KAREN SYNON

MEMBER REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

THE PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE: 21 NOVEMBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant seeks a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the RRT') which was handed down on 18 July 2003. By that decision the RRT affirmed a decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant is a citizen of India. He claimed to fear persecution in India for reason of his religion, as a member of the Sikh faith, and for reason of his political opinion arising from his association with the Sikh independence movement. The applicant's brother was said to be a very active member of that movement. 3 In his protection visa application, the applicant made the following claims: (a) in the period commencing in about 1987 he was detained and beaten up by the police and generally 'worked over' on a couple of occasions. He and his brother were frightened as a result of this, and decided to leave India for a period. In May 1990 the applicant left India for Saudi Arabia, and remained there until May 1992 when he returned to India; (b) whilst the applicant was in Saudi Arabia his father was detained, beaten up and treated very badly by the police; (c) a few years after his return to India (ie in about 1995) a new police inspector came to the police station and began to harass the applicant. At about this time the applicant became involved with the Akali Dal political party and caused his entire village to join in support. The applicant was arrested, warned by the police about his activities and badly worked over. On one occasion he was released from custody due to intervention by Simranjit Singh Mann, the leader of the applicant's branch of the Akali Dal party; (d) he went to New Zealand on 23 February 2001. After four months stay in New Zealand, the applicant came to Australia on 9 June 2001.