(Transcript from SBS World News Radio)
A key United Nations committee has ruled Australia was wrong to expel an Iranian sheikh five years ago and break up his family without adequately explaining why.
Sheikh Mansour Leghaei was forced to leave much of his family behind when a murky ASIO finding sent him away after 16 years in the country.
Now, all that could change.
Ron Sutton has the story.
(Click on the audio tab above to hear the full report)
Tears of joy and fears of what it all means.
Those are two ends of the spectrum of reactions to news the United Nations Human Rights Committee says Australia violated the human rights of Sheikh Mansour Leghaei.
The Australian government expelled the Iranian-born sheikh in 2010, based on secret findings by ASIO that he was a possible threat to national security.
That followed Sheikh Leghaei's unsuccessful 13-year legal battle to force the national security organisation to reveal its reasons.
The UN committee has now ruled Australia failed to provide due process of law.
"In light of the 16 years of lawful residence and long-settled family life in Australia and the absence of any explanation from the state party on the reasons to terminate (his) right to remain, except for the general assertion that it was done for 'compelling reasons of national security,' the committee finds that the state party's procedure lacked due process of law."
The committee says Australia has an obligation to provide a proper remedy now, including a chance for the sheikh to fight the denial of a permanent visa and get compensation.
Sheikh Leghaei says he cried tears of joy when he read the verdict, and this telephone conversation with two of his sons aired on the ABC's 7:30 program.
"On the one hand, we are, of course, very happy, very excited. And on the other hand, we are just waiting to see the response of the government. I was innocent from Day One, and there was a mistake somewhere here. I'm just so happy that, now, a competent, independent body has ... has confirmed that."
Sheikh Leghaei's legal counsel for the UN case, Professor Ben Saul, says, before the ruling, the sheikh faced an impossible situation in trying to prove his innocence.
"Australia has extremely tough national security laws, which say that, if you're a non-citizen, with no right to stay in Australia, then ASIO can make an adverse security assessment in relation to you with no obligation to disclose to you any ruling, any of the evidence that it has against you. And that's quite different from the situation for Australian citizens or permanent residents with visa rights already here in Australia. And it really makes it impossible for a person to get a fair hearing, to challenge the reliability of the evidence against them if they don't know what that evidence is."
Dr Leghaei has said, when he was returning from a holiday in Iran in 1995, Sydney Airport officials found $10,000 in his bag.
He maintains he was delivering a donation to an Islamic centre in Melbourne and did not realise amounts over $5,000 had to be declared.
He later discovered, while launching legal action against ASIO, that the airport officials also took an exercise book out of his bag and copied his student notes.
In them, he had quoted scholars on the subject of jihad.
Much of Australia's Iranian community consists of people who have fled the country since Iran became an Islamic theocracy in 1979.
And while the sheikh and his family celebrate, community activist Cyrus Sarang, of the Refugee Action Collective, says many are deeply upset and scared.
"When he returned to Iran, do you know (who) he visited (back) home in Iran? He visited the Ayatollah Taskhiri, the second man ... under the Ayatollah Khamenei. And he visited him in Tehran. So, you and me, if we want to go to Tehran, or Iran (home), we have to go and visit our families, don't we. Who is this person? And (he went) straight and visited him."
The next step now after the UN committee's ruling remains unclear.
Sheikh Leghaei's wife and teenage daughter returned to Iran with him in 2010, but three adult sons remain in Sydney, where the next generation has now begun.
A spokeswoman for Attorney-General George Brandis says the Federal Government will carefully consider the committee's view and respond within 180 days as required.
But Professor Saul points out nothing is legally binding about the ruling.
"It's not like a court judgment which Australia must immediately implement. But at the same time, this is a procedure where what the UN says is really the most authoritative interpretation of Australia's binding legal obligations under the international human rights treaties."
Share
