WAED v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

tamberlin j: 3 This is an appeal from a decision of a Judge of the Court dismissing an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 23 August 2001 by which the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") not to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The appellant is a stateless Palestinian, registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East ("UNRWA"). He was born in Syria and has lived there most of his life. He arrived in Australia on 24 August 2000. On 14 December 2000 the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Department") under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). On 21 March 2001 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa. On 26 March 2001 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 4 In substance the issues in this case are virtually identical with those raised in the decision in WAEI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 334 so far as the submissions made in relation to the operation of Article 1(D) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done in Geneva on 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 ("the Convention") are concerned. 5 In written submissions for the appellant, it is conceded that unless the second paragraph of Article 1(D) applies so as to automatically entitle him to protection regardless of whether he satisfies the definition in Article 1(A) of the Convention, then the appeal must fail. 6 For the reasons I gave in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v WABQ [2002] FCAFC 329, I do not consider that the second paragraph of Article 1(D) automatically applies by reason of the expression "ipso facto" to confer an entitlement on the appellant to a protection visa. 7 The Minister in this matter has filed a Notice of Contention, arguing that the primary Judge erred in his interpretation of Article 1(D). It is not necessary on this appeal to deal with those contentions. 8 In so far as the appeal relates to the reasons of the decision of the Tribunal that the appellant is not a "refugee", I agree with the primary Judge that the Tribunal's decision in relation to its assessment of whether the appellant was a "refugee" turned on the appellant's credibility and consider that no reviewable error has been made out. 9 For the above reasons the appeal should be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.