Flinging Faruquie out

Flinging Faruquie out

By FRANK MARRINAN
A Possum News Network exclusive
30 August 2006

Today, the hard men and women of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs had intended to set a deadline for ‘removing’ Muhammad Faruquie from Australia. ‘Remove’ is the immigration department’s euphemism for deport. After 19 years in Australia he was to be ‘removed’ to Pakistan.

But the department hasn’t got its way … yet. On Friday 25 August, in a last-ditch bid to avoid deportation, Faruquie was given leave to appeal against the findings of his last Refugee Review Tribunal hearing. The matter will appear before the Federal Court for a directional hearing on 28 September, pending which Faruquie had to be given a bridging visa.

The department says there are no grounds for allowing Faruquie to stay in Australia, although he has been arguing his case with the department and DIMA’s minister, Amanda Vanstone, for some two years, reinforced by a flow of letters on his behalf from ardent supporters, backed up by supporting letters from Vanstone’s ministerial colleagues, Tony Abbott and Brendan Nelson.

The Faruquie saga raises serious questions about the operation of Australia’s immigration laws. Does or doesn’t he meet the criteria for ministerial consideration and who decides? This is also a story full of bureaucratic mix-ups, misplaced documents and dubious departmental claims – a chronicle of tortured processes devoted to trying to deport him. Did he offend someone in the department or would it be reasonable to assume that he must be guilty of some pretty serious offences? What’s the story?

Muhammad Abdul Hameed Faruquie came to Australia on a six month visa in December 1987. He concedes that after that visa expired he was illegal for three years – a situation he remedied himself in July 1991 by reporting to Immigration. They gave him a lecture … and a ‘Section 903’ – at the time a temporary Entry Permit. From then on, as an outcome of class actions he joined and visas correspondingly granted, he was legally in Australia for 14 years. Add his 22 months in detention before January 2006, and it becomes 16 legal years.

So Faruquie was ‘got’ for overstaying by three years, but sort of ‘forgiven’ by the department.

But on 29 April 2004, five weeks after the defeat of the last class action to which he had been a party, he was arrested at work by a DIMA squad and placed into the Villawood detention centre as an illegal resident.

Faruquie says he understood his migration agent of 12 years, Adrian Joel, had written to the Minister seeking permanent residency for him, a task he discovered was not completed when he was detained. Joel however wrote immediately – faxed – asking the Minister to release Faruquie under section 417 of the Migration Act. A case officer told him it had been rejected in Canberra as unacceptable. The Ministerial Intervention Unit told him it wouldn’t be sent to the Minister because he had been found working. Then they couldn’t find the fax. That document becomes a disputed centre to Faruquie’s case.

However his offence, it seems, was to be found working. That it was as an administrator for the NSW Police Service in a key role for a special crime unit didn’t cut any ice with the department … nor subsequently did a glowing reference from the unit commander.

Previously Faruquie had worked at GMH Auburn, Nissan Villawood, Mercedes Bankstown and, briefly, at the Roads and Traffic Authority, specialising in warehousing and inventory tasks.

In detention Faruquie took a well trodden path: ask DIMA for a Bridging Visa E – rejected; reviewed by the Migration Review Tribunal – rejected; ask DIMA for a Protection Visa appeal – rejected; ditto the Refugee Review Tribunal; to the Federal Court – upheld; return to Refugee Review Tribunal – rejected; appeal again to the Federal Court – an action from which he withdrew, believing that by now the Minister would let him stay, particularly given the backing he had mustered, rather than protract the legal processes.

Faruquie was released from detention last February on a Bridging Visa E, raising optimism all round. But six week ago the department foreshadowed his ‘removal’ in a letter advising him the Minister would be rejecting his appeals. This news touched off another spate of letters, including pleas from Monsignor Murphy of the Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office and Anne Henderson of the conservative Sydney Institute … to no avail. Is the Department sending all this mail to the minister or blocking it? Probably the latter.

TO PROTEST against DIMA’s handling of Muhammad Faruquie’s case (quote Case No: VW4084) write to Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs:

minister@immi.gov.au

Please be sure to give your full name and postal address and telephone number.

Fax: 6273 4144

Mail:
Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone
Suite MF40
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

UPDATE
28 October set for appeal

Following his last bid to re-open an appeal in the Federal Court against the Refugee Review Tribunal's rejection of his plea for a protection visa, Muhammad Faruquie was in the Court on 28 September for a directions hearing.

The hearing set 28 October for his appeal to be considered. Consistent with Immigration's hard-line anti-Faruquie stance, its top-draw, top-cash solicitors Clayton Utz invited Muhammad to sign a "short order" form which would have brought on a quick hearing of the matter. He declined and was further advised by Clayton Utz that they were seeking an early hearing date anyway from the docket judge. The 28 October hearing was before a registrar avoided any 'ruling' other than setting the October date, which the docket judge might overturn.

The applicant gets thinner, gaunter and more stressed with every passing day. Immigration continue to pressure him in court, and at other times with pestering phone calls and letters, in a manner which any reasonable assessment might conclude was a tactic designed to wear him down.

His other suit is an application to the Migration Review Tribunal to re-open his original application for Permanent Residency – made in 1993 and rejected in 1995 – because of errors that were not disclosed until he discovered them in papers he got access to through Freedom of Information only in 2004.

• FRANK MARRINAN
1 October 2006



powered by FreeFind		Flinging Faruquie out By FRANK MARRINAN A Possum News Network exclusive 30 August 2006 Today, the hard men and women of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs had intended to set a deadline for ‘removing’ Muhammad Faruquie from Australia. ‘Remove’ is the immigration department’s euphemism for deport. After 19 years in Australia he was to be ‘removed’ to Pakistan. But the department hasn’t got its way … yet. On Friday 25 August, in a last-ditch bid to avoid deportation, Faruquie was given leave to appeal against the findings of his last Refugee Review Tribunal hearing. The matter will appear before the Federal Court for a directional hearing on 28 September, pending which Faruquie had to be given a bridging visa. The department says there are no grounds for allowing Faruquie to stay in Australia, although he has been arguing his case with the department and DIMA’s minister, Amanda Vanstone, for some two years, reinforced by a flow of letters on his behalf from ardent supporters, backed up by supporting letters from Vanstone’s ministerial colleagues, Tony Abbott and Brendan Nelson. The Faruquie saga raises serious questions about the operation of Australia’s immigration laws. Does or doesn’t he meet the criteria for ministerial consideration and who decides? This is also a story full of bureaucratic mix-ups, misplaced documents and dubious departmental claims – a chronicle of tortured processes devoted to trying to deport him. Did he offend someone in the department or would it be reasonable to assume that he must be guilty of some pretty serious offences? What’s the story? Muhammad Abdul Hameed Faruquie came to Australia on a six month visa in December 1987. He concedes that after that visa expired he was illegal for three years – a situation he remedied himself in July 1991 by reporting to Immigration. They gave him a lecture … and a ‘Section 903’ – at the time a temporary Entry Permit. From then on, as an outcome of class actions he joined and visas correspondingly granted, he was legally in Australia for 14 years. Add his 22 months in detention before January 2006, and it becomes 16 legal years. So Faruquie was ‘got’ for overstaying by three years, but sort of ‘forgiven’ by the department. But on 29 April 2004, five weeks after the defeat of the last class action to which he had been a party, he was arrested at work by a DIMA squad and placed into the Villawood detention centre as an illegal resident. Faruquie says he understood his migration agent of 12 years, Adrian Joel, had written to the Minister seeking permanent residency for him, a task he discovered was not completed when he was detained. Joel however wrote immediately – faxed – asking the Minister to release Faruquie under section 417 of the Migration Act. A case officer told him it had been rejected in Canberra as unacceptable. The Ministerial Intervention Unit told him it wouldn’t be sent to the Minister because he had been found working. Then they couldn’t find the fax. That document becomes a disputed centre to Faruquie’s case. However his offence, it seems, was to be found working. That it was as an administrator for the NSW Police Service in a key role for a special crime unit didn’t cut any ice with the department … nor subsequently did a glowing reference from the unit commander. Previously Faruquie had worked at GMH Auburn, Nissan Villawood, Mercedes Bankstown and, briefly, at the Roads and Traffic Authority, specialising in warehousing and inventory tasks. In detention Faruquie took a well trodden path: ask DIMA for a Bridging Visa E – rejected; reviewed by the Migration Review Tribunal – rejected; ask DIMA for a Protection Visa appeal – rejected; ditto the Refugee Review Tribunal; to the Federal Court – upheld; return to Refugee Review Tribunal – rejected; appeal again to the Federal Court – an action from which he withdrew, believing that by now the Minister would let him stay, particularly given the backing he had mustered, rather than protract the legal processes. Faruquie was released from detention last February on a Bridging Visa E, raising optimism all round. But six week ago the department foreshadowed his ‘removal’ in a letter advising him the Minister would be rejecting his appeals. This news touched off another spate of letters, including pleas from Monsignor Murphy of the Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office and Anne Henderson of the conservative Sydney Institute … to no avail. Is the Department sending all this mail to the minister or blocking it? Probably the latter. TO PROTEST against DIMA’s handling of Muhammad Faruquie’s case (quote Case No: VW4084) write to Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: minister@immi.gov.au Please be sure to give your full name and postal address and telephone number. Fax: 6273 4144 Mail: Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone Suite MF40 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 UPDATE 28 October set for appeal Following his last bid to re-open an appeal in the Federal Court against the Refugee Review Tribunal's rejection of his plea for a protection visa, Muhammad Faruquie was in the Court on 28 September for a directions hearing. The hearing set 28 October for his appeal to be considered. Consistent with Immigration's hard-line anti-Faruquie stance, its top-draw, top-cash solicitors Clayton Utz invited Muhammad to sign a "short order" form which would have brought on a quick hearing of the matter. He declined and was further advised by Clayton Utz that they were seeking an early hearing date anyway from the docket judge. The 28 October hearing was before a registrar avoided any 'ruling' other than setting the October date, which the docket judge might overturn. The applicant gets thinner, gaunter and more stressed with every passing day. Immigration continue to pressure him in court, and at other times with pestering phone calls and letters, in a manner which any reasonable assessment might conclude was a tactic designed to wear him down. His other suit is an application to the Migration Review Tribunal to re-open his original application for Permanent Residency – made in 1993 and rejected in 1995 – because of errors that were not disclosed until he discovered them in papers he got access to through Freedom of Information only in 2004. • FRANK MARRINAN 1 October 2006