Askari v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

GROUNDS OF THE application 6 The applicant was unrepresented and does not speak English. He faxed his application from the Immigration Detention Centre at Curtin near Derby. The person who drafted the grounds of application expressed them in the following terms: "I am Hazara ethnicity and Shi'a religion. I am from Afghanistan and my nationality is Afghani. I am illiterate and except Holy Quran. I cannot read or write Dari language. The papers which was founded from my bag is not belong to me. I know nothing about that papers and the papers must be someone else's paper. Whatever questions put to me during interview about my area, I had answered to all of the questions, because I know everything from my village, area, custom, agriculture and tradition. In Afghanistan I had Tazkera. I did not bring my Tazkera here and as Afghan National I had Tazkera in Afghanistan. I escape Afghanistan because of cruelty and tyranny of the Taliban. My life was indangered. My ethnicity and religion was in dangered in Afghanistan." 7 At the hearing this morning the applicant made oral submissions. Those submissions were concerned with the merits of his case before the Tribunal. Essentially, the applicant asserted that the Tribunal was wrong in finding that he was not from Afghanistan. I tried to explain to him what a limited role this Court has in relation to such factual matters.

my reasoning 8 The Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Afghanistan was based on a finding that the applicant was not a national of Afghanistan. This in turn was based on the following: · The applicant's possession of the documents described above, which the Tribunal characterised as being coaching materials which a "genuine Afghan national" would not need. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanation for the existence of these documents among his belongings. It also rejected the applicant's argument that the documents could not be any use to him because he was illiterate. · The Tribunal's assessment that the applicant's answers about the route which he took out of Afghanistan were "thin and hesitant" (see paragraph numbered 4 above). · The Tribunal's refusal to accept that the applicant had an Afghan identity document (a Tazkera); and · The Tribunal's further assessment that the questions which the applicant was able to answer about Afghanistan were "weak as evidence that the applicant is really from there" and that that sort of information was readily available. 9 In essence, the basis for the Tribunal's decision was simply that it did not believe the applicant was a national of Afghanistan as he had claimed. The authorities show that decisions on credibility in matters such as these are almost exclusively within the province of the Tribunal. In my view, it was open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it to disbelieve the applicant's claim to Afghani nationality. That is, there was some evidence (principally the documents found in his possession and the Tribunal's assessment of his answers to its questions) for that conclusion. 10 I have scrutinised the papers and the Tribunal's reasons to see whether there was reviewable error. The Tribunal, in the initial part of its reasons, set out the relevant law correctly. There was nothing later in its reasons to suggest that it did not apply the law as earlier recited. 11 At the hearing this morning I asked counsel for the respondent how the Tribunal could make the statement in the last sentence of paragraph numbered 7 of its reasons above, when it had not made a finding about the applicant's country of nationality. Counsel's response was that this sentence was a typographical error resulting from the use of a precedent. He said that there was no other way to make sense of the sentence. 12 It seems to me that counsel's explanation is probably the correct one. It is not necessary for me to decide the point because, in my view, that sentence does not disclose reviewable error. The Tribunal's reasoning process is, as I have summarised above, sufficiently clear. It found that the applicant was not an Afghan national. He had not made Convention claims in relation to any other country apart from Afghanistan. Accordingly, on the basis of the applicant's claims, the Tribunal did not err in law or commit jurisdictional error when it concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. 13 As I observed in a similar case, Hussain v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 523 at [26] I think it would be considered, by right-minded persons, to be unconscionable and unthinkable if the respondent were to cause the applicant to be removed to Afghanistan without giving him an opportunity to make a fresh application for a protection visa, if the applicant were so minded (bearing in mind the recent developments in Afghanistan). Counsel for the respondent indicated that the applicant would not be removed to Afghanistan "… on the basis of the present application …". In view of the considerable distress exhibited by the applicant during the hearing, I suggested that the respondent's department might, as a matter of common humanity, explain to the applicant precisely what the respondent's intentions were for the applicant's future if his application were dismissed by the Court. 14 As, in my opinion, the Tribunal made no reviewable error, whether error of law or jurisdictional error, the application will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Carr .

Associate: Dated: 7 March 2002 The Applicant appeared for himself:

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A A Jenshel

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor