Alam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 278

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Alam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 278

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476

MD ASHRAFUL ALAM v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1035 of 1999

BRANSON J
SYDNEY
6 MARCH 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1035 of 1999

BETWEEN:	MD ASHRAFUL ALAM Applicant
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be affirmed.

2.        The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

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	N 1035 of 1999

BETWEEN:	MD ASHRAFUL ALAM Applicant
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	6 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Alam has sought a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).  The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Alam is a refugee.  It affirmed the decision that he not be granted a protection visa.

2. The application for an order of review is dated 10 September 1999.  The ground of review identified on the application is, in effect, that the Department of Immigration, as well as the Tribunal, made an error of law.  The error of law is said to be “an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the application of the law to the facts as found by the person who made the decision”.  No particulars of that ground are contained in the application.

3. On 2 November 1999, written submissions were filed with the Court on behalf of Mr Alam.  Mr Alam has told me today that these submissions were prepared by a professional migration agent whom he had paid.  Again, the submissions assert an error of law, that error being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the person who made the decision.  However, in the body of the submissions, no errors of law are identified.  What is sought is reassessment of the merits of Mr Alam's application.  The import of the submissions is effectively summarised in two paragraphs:

   “I therefore certainly believe that my fears of persecution in Bangladesh are well founded, due to my political opinion, and I believe this certainly falls within the scope of the UN Convention of [sic] Refugees, under which Australia has protection obligations.

   I genuinely believe that I have substantial grounds for a favourable assessment of my application, as I have presented an enormous amount of evidence to the Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs as well as the Refugee Review Tribunal, which has incorrectly assessed my application.”

   That is, in substance Mr Alam by the submissions reasserts his belief that he has a fear and his belief that he is entitled to a protection visa in Australia.

4. The problem facing Mr Alam before this Court is that the Tribunal took an adverse view of his credibility.  The Tribunal found that Mr Alam was neither truthful nor credible.  The Tribunal’s findings were entirely dependent upon its views of Mr Alam's credibility.

5. I have carefully considered the written reasons of the Tribunal. I can identify no basis upon which I could properly interfere with the Tribunal's findings concerning Mr Alam's credibility. Moreover I am not able to identify any ground arising under section 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) upon which this Court could interfere with the decision made by the Tribunal. I note that the migration agent retained by Mr Alam was also apparently unable to substantiate any ground of review under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision of the Tribunal must be affirmed. I so order.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson.

Associate:

Dated:   14 March 2000

Mr Alam appeared for himself
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr D. Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	6 March 2000
Date of Judgment:	6 March 2000