Applicant S1914/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 601

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1914/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 601

APPLICANT S1914/2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 361 of 2005

WILCOX J
4 MAY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 361 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1914/2003 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed;

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s 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	NSD 361 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1914/2003 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	4 MAY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Mowbray given on 22 February 2005. Pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Chief Justice has directed that the appeal be heard and determined by a single judge.

2. The magistrate dismissed an application, made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), by which the appellant sought to challenge a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) on 19 February 1998. The application for prerogative relief was not made until six years later, on 31 May 2004.

3. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh and of Hindu religion.  The Tribunal also accepted that the appellant had married a woman who came from a Muslim family, that the couple eloped without the knowledge of either family and lived illegally in India for some years.  However, the Tribunal did not accept the appellant’s claims as to events that allegedly occurred after he returned to Bangladesh.

4. Because the Tribunal was unable to accept much of what the appellant had said about those events, the Tribunal did not accept that the appellant had a well‑founded fear of persecution. 

5. The appellant has made clear to me that he strongly disagrees with the Tribunal's view about the facts of the case and with its assessment of the prospects of violence against him if he returns to Bangladesh.  However, I have pointed out to him that this Court cannot review the Tribunal's findings of fact.

6. The learned magistrate distilled from the matters put before him by the appellant that he relied upon three grounds of arguable jurisdictional error.  In a document handed to me today, and entitled ‘Amended Notice of Appeal’, the appellant dealt with only the first of those three grounds.  However, in response to my question, he indicated that he continued to rely on the other two grounds.  The appellant did not develop those grounds or…