Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 183

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 183

MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AL MAMUN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N1467 of 2000

WILCOX J
21 FEBRUARY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1467 of 2000

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AL MAMUN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application 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
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1467 of 2000

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AL MAMUN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	21 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:  

1. The matter before the Court is an application by Mohammed Abdullah Al Mamun for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The applicant filed the application himself, he being in detention at Villawood Detention Centre at the time.  In accordance with the scheme arranged by the Court with the Bar Association of New South Wales and the Law Society of New South Wales, Mr Al Mamun was referred for legal advice, without cost to him. 

2. Mr Al Mamun has told me this morning that he was visited by the barrister to whom the matter was referred, but this occurred only a few days ago.  He said the barrister advised him to withdraw the case.  Apparently, the barrister had a copy of the “green book” containing the relevant documents but did not leave his copy with Mr Al Mamun.  However, Mr Al Mamun told me he received a copy of the Tribunal's decision when it was issued last December.  This is the only document that is material to resolution of the matter today.

3. Mr Al Mamun told me that, despite the barrister's advice, he has been reluctant to withdraw the claim.  I pointed out to Mr Al Mamun the limit on the Court's jurisdiction and, in particular, that the Court is not empowered to review the Tribunal's findings of fact.  This is a matter of particular importance in this case, because the reason Mr Al Mamun failed in the Tribunal was that the Tribunal did not accept many of his factual claims; in particular, the treatment he said he had suffered, on the basis of which he claimed he had a fear of persecution because of political opinion.

4. I took Mr Al Mamun through the Tribunal's reasons and pointed out the findings that had been made and that they were all findings of fact.  Mr Al Mamun accepts this and seems to accept that I cannot interfere with those findings.  He is unable to point to any error of law or any failure by the Tribunal to follow any requirement of the Migration Act. 

5. As I always do when I expect an applicant is unlikely to be legally represented, I have considered for myself whether there is any such error or failure apparent on the face of the Tribunal's reasons.  I find no such error.  It seems to me the review was dealt with in accordance with the proper procedures, with the Tribunal correctly instructing itself as to the law. 

6. 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.

7. Counsel for the Minister asked for an order for costs.  Had Mr Al Mamun taken the barrister's advice and withdrawn the matter before today, I would have been inclined not to make the usual order.  However, he has not taken this course.  Under the circumstances, I think I have no alternative other than to make the usual order.  The order of the Court is that the application 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 Justice Wilcox .

Associate:

Dated:            13 March 2001

The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	21 February 2001
Date of Judgment:	21 February 2001