Applicant NAKK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 929

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant NAKK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 929

APPLICANT NAKK OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 523 OF 2002

EMMETT J
19 JULY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 523 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NAKK OF 2002 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 JULY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed;

2.        the applicant pay the respondent’s costs;

3.the respondent inform the applicant of the provisions of Order 35 Rule 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

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 523 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NAKK OF 2002 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	19 JULY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant in this matter is a national of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 11 January 2000.  On 4 February 2000 he lodged an application for a protection visa.  On 21 February 2000 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Minister”), refused to grant a protection visa.  On 29 February 2000 the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  On 7 May 2002 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.  When the matter was called on today for directions there was no appearance for the applicant.  There is evidence before me that the applicant had been notified on two occasions of the return day.  The Minister therefore seeks that the matter be dismissed pursuant to Order 10 Rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules.

2. I have read the reasons of the Tribunal for affirming the Minister’s decision.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant is a Bangladeshi national.  However, it found that the applicant gave conflicting, inconsistent and highly implausible evidence about his work and the trouble he supposedly had with the Awami League and the police.  The Tribunal did not accept that as factual.  The Tribunal held that the applicant's effort to portray his entry into seamanship as being motivated by a need to escape certain persecution in Bangladesh was based on falsehood.  The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant gave false evidence as to when and how he started off as a seaman to disguise much earlier work in that field. 

3. The Tribunal found that the applicant was an unreliable witness and was not satisfied that he satisfied a real chance of Convention related persecution in Bangladesh if he returned there.  There is nothing apparent in the reasons to indicate that any possible ground would be established on which this Court could interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.  In the circumstances it is appropriate to accede to the Minister's request.  Accordingly, I propose to order the application be dismissed, I will order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs and I will direct the Minister to inform the applicant of the provisions of the rules whereby an order made in absentia can be set aside.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:            19 July 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	There was no appearance for the applicant
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	19 July 2002
Date of Judgment:	19 July 2002