WAFK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction 1 The appellant is an Iranian national who arrived in Australia on 3 November 2000 without lawful authority. He lodged an application for a protection visa on 1 March 2001 and on 23 March 2001 that application was refused by a delegate of the Minister. The appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') on 26 March 2001 for a review of the delegate's decision. On 13 August 2001, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate. The appellant applied to this Court for judicial review of that decision and on 22 November 2001 the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision. The Court ordered the matter be remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted for reconsideration. 2 The newly constituted Tribunal, on 14 March 2002, affirmed the decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant again sought judicial review in this Court and the matter was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court. On 23 January 2003, Bryant CFM made orders dismissing the application with costs. The appellant subsequently lodged a notice of appeal against the learned magistrate's decision and by direction of the Chief Justice that appeal has been heard by a single judge of this Court. 3 The single issue raised in this appeal arises from the use by the Tribunal of common form text in some sections of its reasons including sections in which it made findings about the credibility of the appellant. For the reasons that follow, I do not consider that any jurisdictional error is disclosed. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. Claims and Evidence 4 In an interview conducted with an officer of the Department of Immigration on 13 November 2000 the appellant was asked why he had left his country of nationality. His recorded answer was that there were many reasons. According to a note of his answer, he had studied metallurgical engineering at Isfahan University of Technology which he described as a government university. After graduation he served eighteen months of compulsory military service. Six months of that was military training and the rest was spent in a defence industry factory. He said he was recognised as the best design engineer in that establishment. However, following completion of his military service he was unable to obtain employment. 5 The appellant's brother worked for 'Sepah' and tried unsuccessfully to get the appellant to join that organisation. He said his brother had worked for Sepah for over twenty years and had a lot of friends there. He said members of Sepah would always inform each other of important matters. The appellant is then recorded as saying that he did not like the Iranian regime and had little contact with his brother in Sepah. He was warned by his brother that he should leave the country. His brother told him that if he were to stay he would be unable to do anything for him. 6 For one and a half years before he left Iran he had been engaged in labouring work and in a fruit shop and selling cigarettes. He reached a point where he thought that he would die or commit suicide if he continued to suffer what he described as humiliation by uneducated people because he was educated but working 'at their level'. He decided to leave Iran and go overseas to a place where he was regarded as a human being and respected. He contacted a people smuggler. The appellant went on to say that Australia is a decent country which respects the value of human beings. 7 There was no direct claim of persecution for a Convention reason set out in the note of the appellant's response to questions at the initial interview. 8 In his application for a protection visa the appellant claimed that he had been refused employment after graduation and after completing his military service for three reasons: