Al-Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1302

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Al-Mamun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 1302

MIGRATION – no question of principle to be decided.

MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AL-MAMUN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 241 OF 2001

LEE, BRANSON & STONE JJ
SYDNEY
27 AUGUST 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 241 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AL-MAMUN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	LEE, BRANSON & STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	27 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 241 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AL-MAMUN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	LEE, BRANSON & STONE JJ
DATE:	27 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia in February 2000 on a student visa to commence studies at Charles Sturt University at Wagga Wagga in this State. He returned to Bangladesh because of the illness of his father in April 2000. He then returned to Australia pursuant to the visa in the same month.

2. He made application to the Minister’s Department to have the conditions on his visa changed to enable him to transfer his place of study. It appears that application was not acceded to and a decision was made by the Minister, or his delegate, to cancel the applicant’s visa and place him in migration detention. That occurred in July 2000.

3. In August 2000 the appellant applied for a protection visa. The claims made in support of that application were that he feared harm at the hands of youths and others who, he believed, were members of the Awami League. The claims were considered and rejected first by a delegate of the Minister and, second, upon an application for review by the appellant, by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The appellant applied to this Court for review of the decision of the Tribunal. The application for review was heard by Wilcox J who said as follows in disposing of the application:

   “The problems, from Mr Al Mamun’s point of view, are, first, that the Tribunal rejected critical aspects of his story and second, that even in relation to some of those aspects, the Tribunal held they would not, in any event, reflect persecution because of political opinion but would represent criminal activity by a gang of thugs. These findings were open to the Tribunal. They do not provide any basis upon which this Court can interfere. In the circumstances, I have no option other than to dismiss the application.”

4. The appellant, when asked by this Court to specify where there was error in his Honour’s decision was unable to do so or, indeed, to make any comment at all. He was unrepresented before us and plainly enough not able to define a question of law to be considered by this Court.

5. However, Wilcox J had noted that at the time when the appellant appeared before him, although again unrepresented, the appellant had received advice on the matter from a barrister. Furthermore, his Honour had pointed out to the appellant that this Court does not consider the applicant’s claims for itself and is unable to make any fresh findings of fact on its own account.

6. It is to be noted that the appellant did not attempt the task of showing to his Honour that the fact-finding exercise carried out by the Tribunal involved an error of law. It is, therefore, not open to this Court to consider that such an error occurred in his Honour’s reasoning in that regard when he disposed of the matter in the terms set out above.

7. From the foregoing, the conclusion of this Court is inevitable, namely, that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Lee, Branson & Stone.

Associate:

Dated:             

The appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	27 August 2001
Date of Judgment:	27 August 2001