SZDFF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1178

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDFF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1178

SZDFF, SZDFG, SZDFH AND SZDFI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 701 OF 2006

EDMONDS J

1 SEPTEMBER 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 701 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDFF, SZDFG, SZDFH AND SZDFI

Appellants

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE OF ORDER: 1 SEPTEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the first 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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 701 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDFF, SZDFG, SZDFH AND SZDFI

Appellants

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 1 September 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (Smith FM) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') to refuse to grant protection visas to the appellants.

The Decision under Review 2 The appellants are a mother and her three sons, all citizens of Lebanon, who arrived in Australia on 13 October 2000. Only the appellant mother (SDZFF) advanced claims to be a refugee in her own right, the sons relying on membership of their mother's family, and I will refer to her as 'the appellant'. 3 The recitation of the relevant background facts contained in the written submissions of the Minister do not seem to be in dispute and I accept them as an accurate summary of the decision under review and the proceedings below. 4 In summary, the appellant claimed to fear persecution in Lebanon on three bases: (1) She feared harm by Hezbollah and other Islamic groups as a result of being suspected of having collaborated with the South Lebanese Army ('SLA') led by General Antoine Lahad and the former Israeli occupation; (2) She feared harm from a Mr Mrad, a wealthy politician in Lebanon, whom she claimed had been responsible for the murder of her eldest son in 1990; and (3) She feared harm from relatives of her son-in-law, who blamed her for the break-up of his marriage to her daughter (an Australian citizen). 5 As to the first claim, the Tribunal accepted that the appellant had worked as a housekeeper for a Mr Al-Khoury, an SLA member. It also accepted that in June 2000 she had been detained and questioned for two days by Hezbollah. However, it did not accept that this gave rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for two discrete reasons: (1) The appellant was never a member of the SLA, had no political profile, had no association with Israel or its administration in South Lebanon and did not claim to have been suspected of passing information to the SLA. She only worked as a housekeeper and did not perform any other duties. Having regard to the appellant's profile, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she would be perceived as a collaborator with the SLA. (2) In any event, according to the independent information, former SLA members and people accused of collaboration were no longer targets for retribution by Hezbollah, or other violent groups. 6 As to the second claim, the Tribunal accepted that the appellant's son had been murdered in 1990 while working for an MP in Tripoli. However, again, it did not accept that a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason arose, for a number of reasons: (1) The appellant had 'provided no acceptable reason as to why she believed her son was killed by members of Abdel Rahim Mrad's party' (AB 135). In other words, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the son's killing had anything to do with Mr Mrad. (2) If there were a link, the Tribunal did not think that that gave rise to a real risk of future persecution of the appellant or her sons at the hands of Mr Mrad. There was no suggestion that he had harassed them; only a theory (which the Tribunal regarded as 'farfetched speculation') that Mr Mrad would harm her and her sons to prevent her sons from avenging their brother's death. (3) If that theory were sound, the motivation for the feared harm would not be an imputed political opinion, but merely Mr Mrad's desire to avoid revenge (i.e., the feared harm would not be for a Convention reason). 7 As to the third claim, the harm that the appellant feared was motivated by 'personal reasons' (i.e., revenge for her perceived role in a marriage break-up), not by any Convention reason.