- 138 2.3 The petitioner left Somalia in 1991 because his father, who had been a police officer in the former Siad Barre Government, was being sought by the United Somalia Congress (USC) militia. In early 1991, the members of this militia came to the petitioner’s family home and raped and killed his sister. The petitioner moved to Kenya, where he lived from early 1991 to late 1992, and he also spent some time there in 1994. During his time in Kenya he worked in a restaurant. 2.4 In 1992, the petitioner returned to Somalia because his wife was a member of the Hawiye clan (the same clan as the USC militia) and this offered him some protection. From 1992 to 1994, the petitioner worked for the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) in Mogadishu as an informer, finding out where guns were kept. On 3 October 1993, the USC, having found out that the petitioner was giving information to UNOSOM, killed the petitioner’s wife and shot the petitioner, wounding him in the kidney. 2.5 In 1994, while the petitioner was at his father-in-law’s house, the USC shot the petitioner in the shoulder and killed his sister-in-law. As his father-in-law was a Hawiye clan member he was able to prevent any further killing but later told the petitioner he could not protect him any longer and took him to the airport from where the petitioner flew to Kenya with his son. 2.6 The petitioner remained illegally in Kenya until 1997. Then he left for Zambia and subsequently South Africa where he bought a passport in a different name and used it to travel to Australia. The petitioner arrived in Australia on 16 July 1998 with no documents. On 28 July 1998 he applied for a protection visa to the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). On 21 August 1998, the petitioner’s application was refused. The petitioner sought review of this decision by the RRT which affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. 2.7 The RRT expressed reservations about the veracity of the petitioner’s claims but it made no finding that the events as described by the petitioner did not happen. It found that the petitioner could return to Somalia and live outside Mogadishu, in the Galkayo area in north-eastern Somalia. In making its decision, the RRT took note of independent reports that factions in the north-east and north-west of Somalia would not accept forced returnees. It also noted that the petitioner was not willing to return to any area of Somalia, including Galkayo. However, it considered that these factors did not make him eligible for refugee status. 2.8 The petitioner sought judicial review of the RRT decision in the Federal Court of Australia. On 10 September 1999, the Federal Court dismissed the petitioner’s application, upon which the petitioner lodged an appeal with the Full Federal Court of Australia. On 10 March 2000, the Full Federal Court dismissed this appeal. The petitioner lodged an application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Federal Court to the High Court of Australia. The petitioner notes that this is the final appellate court in Australia. 2.9 According to the petitioner, Somalia remains a failed State and a territory revealing a consistent pattern of gross and flagrant human rights abuses.a He says that the situation of the Shikal in Somalia is well known. Amnesty International has described the Shikal as being “vulnerable to serious abuses including arbitrary killings”, and has stated that it “is opposed to the return of anyone form the Shikal clan to Somalia”. He states that the facts of this case are