SZDHN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1539

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDHN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1539

SZDHN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 890 OF 2006

BENNETT J

31 OCTOBER 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 890 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDHN

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 October 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $2,600.00 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 890 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDHN

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 31 OCTOBER 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant is a citizen of India who claimed in his application to the Refugee Review Tribunal to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his religious beliefs. His claim was that he is a Christian from Tamil Nadu who was involved with the Congress Party of India and participated in demonstrations against the Bharatiya Janata Party ('BJP') in relation to their religious policies. He also claimed to have participated in demonstrations against Hindu extremists. All of the claims that he made and the detail of them depended upon his claim to be a Christian. The Tribunal set out those claims in some detail, including what might be characterised as a claim that 'false cases' had been filed against him by the police. 2 The appellant's claims related to his participation in processions or demonstrations because he was a Christian. What occurred in those demonstrations was alleged conflict between Christians and Hindus. The Tribunal, for reasons that it gave which were open to it on the evidence before it, did not accept that the appellant is a Christian. Indeed, it was positively satisfied that he is not a Christian, that no one would regard him as a Christian and that he could not have been identified by any person or group as a "Christian fanatic" or a Christian. 3 The appellant complained about his participation in a Christian rally in November 1998 as a result of which he was injured, tortured, arrested, and charges were wrongly laid against him by the police. The Tribunal, for reasons that it gave and which were also open on the evidence, did not accept that such a rally occurred. 4 Accordingly, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, that is, his claimed Christianity. It said: 'It follows I do not accept [the appellant] was involved in Christian rallies in 1992 or 1995 or November 1988 and I do not accept that he was attacked in his home in 1999 by persons who had identified him from his involvement in the 1998 rally. It follows I do not accept he was assaulted, arrested, tortured, harmed or legal proceedings were commenced because of his involvement in a procession or because of his religion or imputed religion.' 5 The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not claimed to fear persecution for any other Convention reason and that none was raised on the evidence before it. Accordingly, it affirmed the first respondent's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 6 The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, where his application was dismissed on 20 April 2006 (SZDHN v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 623). The appellant appears in person in this Court and appeals his Honour's judgment.