AUSTRALIA CONTINUES TO GIVE ASYLUM TO MUSLIM BROTHERS
The following is a collection of cases that were heard by the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal,and higher courts , where the applicants sought protection on the grounds of persecution because of political beliefs; in these cases evidenced by their membership of the Muslim Brotherhood.In all these cases ,where the appeals have been successful, the decision was based on findings of whether the applicants had successfully proven membership of the Muslim Brotherhood.
These cases must be read in full,but I have provided some excerpts so as to summarise the issue.
There are other cases (and these are larger in number) where the appeal failed because the applicant could not prove membership of the Muslim Brotherhood to the satisfaction of the tribunal or court.
Therefore, asylum is being provided members of the Muslim Brotherhood,even after 9-11.One of the main basis of the decision to grant asylum is proving membership of the Muslim Brotherhood!
This matter concerns a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (the Minister), in effect, to refuse to grant the Applicant a protection visa, as provided for under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The Applicant was represented by a solicitor from Legal Aid.
In 1984 the Applicant joined the Muslim Brotherhood in Hyderabad. He said this was only possible by invitation from existing members. He had become significantly involved through his activities in the Muslim Student Union
Decision: The Tribunal remits the application for consideration in accordance with the direction that the Applicant must be taken to have satisfied the criterion that he is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention
M196 of 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2005] FMCA 1650
MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – protection visa – confusion regarding meaning of 'jihad' and political group 'al Jihad' – whether denial of procedural fairness – reliance of textbook extract not put to applicant – whether jurisdictional error – whether breach of s.424 of Migration Act.
The applicant before this court relies upon an application filed 1 September 2004 seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 3 July 2001. In its decision the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the first respondent's delegate to refuse to grant to the applicant a protection visa.
The applicant is a citizen of Egypt who arrived in Australia on 7 March 2000. He travelled on an Egyptian passport issued in Kiev on 14 September 1999 and valid to 13 September 2006. When he arrived in Australia on 7 March 2000 he was the holder of a tourist short stay visa. Before he arrived in Australia the applicant has resided in the Ukraine for over five years.
6.On 20 March 2000 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa, and on 8 May 2000 a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visa. The applicant then applied for review of that decision to the Tribunal on 1 June 2000.
"5. I have known the Muslim Brotherhood for as long as I can remember. In around 1990, while I was still doing my national services, I was approached through men I knew from the mosque to become involved in the Muslim Brotherhood . I was invited to join the prayer groups and meetings. At this stage Islamic movements in Egypt were on the rise and I had friends who were joining Muslim Brotherhood and other organisations.
6. I was interested in the Muslim Brotherhood because of my commitment to the Muslim faith. The mosque that I attended most was in (Y) although I also went to other mosques in surrounding towns. The Muslim Brotherhood was fairly strong in (Y).
7. Part of the reason that I was invited to join the Muslim Brotherhood was because I am a part of a big family in the (Y) area. I was asked to spread the Muslim Brotherhood message through my extended family.
8. I did not tell my immediate family about my involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood . I did not want them to know because I knew they would not approve as they knew the Muslim Brotherhood was an illegal organisation and that people were sometimes being arrested. The only one I told about my involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood until I was forced to leave was my younger brother, (M)." (Court book page 40)
RRT Reference: N96/12875 (10 November 1997)
Decision: The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness and accepts his claim that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood . The applicant appeared sincere in describing his belief in the Brotherhood's aims, and the applicant's witness was credible in describing how he had been satisfied that the applicant was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as he claimed. The Tribunal also accepts as factual the communication from the Muslim Brotherhood attesting to the applicant's membership of the group. The signatory to that document is a member of a family with a very high profile in the Brotherhood. One of the Bayanuni family is currently the controller-general of the Brotherhood (see BBC Monitoring Service, above).
The applicant therefore has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Syrian authorities, because of his political opinion and religious beliefs as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood , if he returns to Syria.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2) of the Act for a protection visa.