Amin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1811

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Amin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1811

BENIR AMIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 630 OF 2000

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
24 NOVEMBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N630 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	BENIR AMIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 NOVEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for review from the Refugee Review Tribunal decision is 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	N630 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	BENIR AMIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	24 NOVEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia in September 1998 on a Bangladesh passport.  On 16 October 1998 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, which I will refer to as the Department.  The Minister's delegate refused the grant of a protection visa on 9 November 1998 and on 9 December that year the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) for review of the delegate's decision.  The applicant then engaged migration consultants and further submissions were lodged on behalf of the applicant together with various documents in support.

2. The RRT held an oral hearing in respect of the applicant on 24 May 2000 at the conclusion of which the RRT’s decision affirming the decision of the delegate was handed down.  The applicant has lodged a notice of appeal in which he raises a number of grounds. Not all of these have been pursued. 

3. The gravamen of the case which advanced before me for the applicant was that proper consideration was not given, and could not have been given, to the application by the RRT because the decision was handed down on the same day.  The applicant says that it would have been necessary to look into the history and events and determine whether the documents which had been placed in evidence by him were accurate or not.  It is common ground, that during the course of the hearing before the RRT, the documents in question were referred to and questions were asked so that it can be presumed that the decision maker at least knew of the existence of the documents, considered them, and formed a view on them.  The view was adverse to the case advanced by the applicant.

4. The decision by the RRT turns on a finding that the applicant's evidence was so unreliable as to totally undermine his credibility in the present matter.  This was not merely an assertion on the part of the RRT, but was made by reference to a number of inconsistencies and what were perceived to be doubtful elements in the documentation and in the case as presented by the applicant.  It is true to say that a strong adverse finding of lack of credibility was made by the RRT as a consequence of the inconsistencies and discrepancies which it found in the documents. 

5. Although the decision may have been expressed in somewhat strong terms, I am satisfied that sufficient grounds of inconsistency and problematic aspects of the evidence have been referred to in the material which was before the decision-maker to support the decision.  The task of this Court is not to revisit the merits of the decision below but simply to determine whether there has been any error of law, having regard to the legislation and the decided cases.  There is nothing before me, despite the allegation made in the applicant’s written material, to indicate that there was not sufficient and proper consideration of the matter and I am not satisfied that any case has been made out in terms of bias, actual or apparent, in the reasons for decision expressed by the decision makers.

6. The RRT found the applicant to be what it described as a fickle and highly unreliable witness in the matter, as a consequence of which it was not prepared to accept the evidence which was advanced by the applicant.  The RRT found that it was not satisfied that there was a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason in Bangladesh.  I am not persuaded, after an examination of the decision, and looking at the grounds of appeal and considering what has been put before me by the applicant today, that any reviewable error has been demonstrated which would warrant any interference with the decision made by the decision maker below in this matter.

7. Accordingly, the order of the Court in this matter is that the application for review from the decision of the RRT is 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 Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:            21 December 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	24 November 2000
Date of Judgment:	24 November 2000