Family Quarrel Not Grounds for Visa Status In Australia
June 13, 2007
Court says quarrel doesn’t justify visa
The High Court has ruled a family quarrel back in India did not justify an Indian couple being granted Australian refugee visas.
Judges ruled unanimously that the case mounted by a husband and wife, identified only as SZBYR and SZBYS, was not sufficient basis to establish they had a well-founded fear of persecution which would enable them to be granted refugee status.
The judges upheld the finding of the Refugee Review Tribunal that the couple’s claims lacked any connection with the requirements of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
The court heard SZBYR and SZBYS were adherents of the Ismaili Muslim sect and followers of the Aga Khan who arrived in Australia in 2002.
SZBYR was previously married to a woman named Salima whose family were influential Muslims of a different sect and a higher social status in the city of Hyderabad.
Despite family disapproval, Salima married SZBYR in 1997. He told Australian immigration officials he was falsely arrested and imprisoned by police on a number of occasions between 1997 and 2001 at the corrupt instigation of Salima’s family. He also suffered other forms of harassment from them including assault.
In 1999, SZBYR agreed to Salima’s father’s request to divorce her.
He and SZBYS married in 2000. Salima later allegedly committed suicide. The couple moved to Mumbai where they were charged with murdering Salima and jailed for 15 days until released on bail.
Despite the charge relating to Salima’s death, they then left for Australia using their own passports.
They told Australian authorities they feared they would be imprisoned due to the outstanding charge and would suffer continued animus from Salima’s family if they returned to India.
The couple applied for an Australian protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion.
That was refused. The Immigration Department concluded their difficulties arose out of SZBYR’s relationship with Salima and her family and that was a private matter outside the scope of the Refugee Convention.
The Refugee Review Tribunal refused their applications for review as did the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.
So they appealed to the High Court which unanimously dismissed their case.
The Age (Melbourne), June 13, 2007
