WABO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Carr J of 23 October 2001 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant appeared in person in this appeal and was also unrepresented in the proceedings before the primary judge. He had claimed before the Tribunal that he was a stateless Palestinian from Kuwait. Understandably, the notice of appeal did not identify with any clarity the alleged errors of the primary judge but drew attention to the decision of Hely J in Kord v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1163. The appellant stated in the notice of appeal that he had been denied citizenship in Kuwait and his rights were limited and he could not lead a normal life. 3 However, as the primary judge pointed out, the Tribunal did not accept his account of his experiences in Kuwait. The Tribunal was not affirmatively satisfied that the appellant was a stateless Palestinian born in Kuwait. However the Tribunal considered the position of the appellant on the assumption that he was, and the Tribunal appears to have concluded that Palestinians enjoy "sufficiently good" conditions in Kuwait. The Tribunal did not accept a specific claim of the appellant that as a result of the actions of his second employer, he came to the attention of the security forces in Kuwait. The Tribunal also rejected a claim of the appellant that he came to the attention of the authorities because a cousin had been detained on spying charges. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's account of his reasons for leaving Kuwait. 4 In the case of Kord v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Tribunal had accepted, at least implicitly, the applicant's account of his past experiences. The applicant in that matter was of Algerian descent and a citizen of Iran. The issue was whether the experiences of the applicant in Iran might constitute persecution. Hely J concluded that the Tribunal erred in law in its consideration of this question. However that case is not analogous to the present case because, in this matter, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's account of his experiences in Kuwait. The judgment of Hely J was, in any event, reversed on appeal. 5 The appellant also raised in his oral submissions in the appeal, issues concerning travel documentation and whether he left Kuwait on his own passport. However these factual issues were the province of the Tribunal. 6 The appellant has not established error on the part of the primary judge or on the part of the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal should be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.