Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is an Indian national. He seeks review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 19 April 1999 affirming the decision of the Minister's delegate refusing the grant of a protection visa. 2 The applicant's claim to refugee status, as defined in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (amended by the 1967 Protocol), was based upon a perceived threat of political persecution if he were forced to return to the Indian province of Punjab. The applicant is a Sikh, whose religious and political activities are alleged to be opposed by both the police and Sikh militants. Opposition to the Indian government, through participation in the activities of the youth organisation AISSF (All India Sikh Student Federation), is said to have provoked surveillance and harassment by the Indian police. His association with moderate Sikh political and religious factions was also alleged to have attracted the attention of fundamentalist or militant elements within the Sikh community.

The Applicant's claims 3 The Tribunal noted the following facts and incidents as those relied upon by the applicant: (a) While studying in Amritsar the applicant joined the AISSF in 1989 which he said was fighting against the government for peace. He worked, underground, for the organisation for two years; (b) In 1991 the police discovered the applicant was a member of the AISSF and his name was placed on their "hit list" and the family's permission to defend itself by use of weapons, which had been granted by the police following an attack by terrorists in 1987 (this was later changed by the applicant to 1989) was revoked. The police asked his father to produce him for interrogation, but he refused. His father was aware that the police had killed young Sikhs. His name was placed on "the surveillance list". (c) Sikh militants have always held a grudge against his family. His family are wealthy but his father disapproves of violence and would not accede to the militant's demands for money to support the Khalistan movement. His parents are prominent members of the Akali Dal Mann, a human rights wing and his father has a close relationship with its President. He advocated a separate Sikh state and this was not tolerated by the authorities. (d) Threats of killing his family continued after the incident involving the terrorists. The terrorists believed them to be informers. They lived in constant fear for their lives. He went into hiding "under the guidance" of his father. (e) The police became more agitated about his father's involvement in human rights. (f) In 1993 the police took and kept his father in illegal detention for two days and he was tortured. (g) His father decided, because of the threat to the applicant's life, to send him out of the country temporarily. He was refused a passport and one was only obtained after his father paid a bribe. After some time he obtained a student visa for Australia. He thought the situation in India would improve and did not seek refugee status. (h) In December 1996 he travelled back to India following the death of his grandmother. On a visit to relatives he was attacked by militants. His brother was shot, but he escaped injury. When his father reported the incident the applicant was classified a "proclaimed offender". The police repeated their demand that he be produced. This was taken by his family as confirming the currency of the threat from police towards him. (i) He hid in a state bordering the Punjab, but was attacked by militants again and they stoned his house. He was terrified. (j) He concluded that his life was at risk in India, returned to Australia and applied for refugee status. (k) The applicant said that his family continues to be abused, tortured and humiliated by the police. He described his parents as political activists. 4 The applicant produced documents and photographs. They included a letter confirming his life membership of the International Sikh Youth Federation in Australia. He had photographs of a protest of which he was a participant in 1997, and he said he had taken part in other activities of the ISYF and attended its meetings. The demonstration referred to was the only one he had attended to date. 5 The applicant produced a letter from his lawyer dated March 1999, which stated that the applicant was a "proclaimed offender" and that there were "non-bailable warrants" issued against him for offences which the applicant said had involved the giving of anti-national speeches. 6 The applicant was given an opportunity to and did respond to information held by the Tribunal bearing upon certain of the matters raised by him. Nothing turns upon that process. The Tribunal's Reasoning 7 The grounds for review necessitate a summary of the matters appearing under the Tribunal's heading "Findings and Reasons": · The Tribunal proceeded upon the basis that the applicant believed he was suspected to be a police informer by the militants, with respect to the incident in 1987. · He was not, however, subjected to any harm from them up to the time that he left India in late 1995. · Any fear he may have had on that account was therefore not well founded. · The independent evidence indicated that Sikh militancy has declined markedly in recent times. · The applicant's claim to have been attacked by militants when he returned to India is then not plausible. · Further, any fears of persecution by the Sikh militants is not well founded by reference to this evidence and the length of time since the events of 1987 which gave rise to their hostile interest in the applicant. · The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant was involved with the AISSF and his father's association with the Akali Dal Mann party. · However, he had never been detained by the authorities, was able to obtain a passport in his own name and depart the country twice. · The independent evidence indicates that immigration controls at India airports were strict as at 1992. The Tribunal had no reason to believe checks for those wanted by the authorities are not still made and, given the increase in use of computers in India, they may be more thorough than that now. · Taking these factors into account the Tribunal rejected the assertion that it was only through bribery that he was twice able to clear the immigration authorities. · Given clearance by Immigration, the Tribunal also rejected the lawyer's claims of the existence of warrants for the applicant's arrest. · The Tribunal also noted that there was little in the applicant's background to warrant the authorities pursuit of him. · Overall, the Tribunal preferred the assessment of the independent evidence of the present situation in the Punjab: that militancy has virtually disappeared and that there had been a significant improvement in adherence to human rights standards. · The Tribunal noted the experts' view was that only high profile militants and human rights activists remained at risk of detention by the authorities. · The applicant had only a minor role in the AISSF and has been out of the country since 1995, except for two months. · The applicant's father's association with the President of the ADM has not resulted in his present detention, although he may be the subject of police enquiry from time to time. · The applicant does not play a prominent role in Sikh organisations in Australia and the Tribunal rejected as "utterly implausible" his assertion that his family were visited by police a few days after he took part in the demonstration in Canberra. · The Tribunal concluded that he does not fit the profile of a person sought by the Indian authorities for Sikh separatists beliefs. · Any fear of persecution held by the applicant is not well founded. · The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance the applicant might face persecution on account of his political opinions.