Asadullah v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 141

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Asadullah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 141

SHARIF MOHAMMAD ASADULLAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1343 of 1999

BRANSON J
SYDNEY
14 FEBRUARY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1343 of 1999

BETWEEN:	SHARIF MOHAMMAD ASADULLAH Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 FEBRUARY 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 1343 of 1999

BETWEEN:	SHARIF MOHAMMAD ASADULLAH Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	14 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, who is a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia on 17 June 1997.  On 1 August 1997 he lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). On 20 August 1997 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused the application. The applicant sought review of that decision. On 26 October 1999 the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2. The applicant's claim to be entitled to a protection visa is based on his asserted fear that he will be harmed by the Awami League if he returns to Bangladesh.  He also claims to fear arrest and false prosecution by the police, who he says have been influenced by the Awami League, should he return to Bangladesh.  He grounds his fears on his claimed involvement with the Bangladesh National Party (“the BNP”).  The applicant claims that he is a prominent leader of the BNP.  He says that he joined the student wing of that organisation in June 1987.

3. The Tribunal did not accept as true the applicant's claim of involvement with the BNP.  It also did not accept that he is of interest to the Awami League or the police in Bangladesh.  Having regard to certain conduct of the applicant, certain apparent inconsistencies between his evidence and the content of documents presented to the Tribunal by the applicant and independent country information concerning the fabrication of documents in Bangladesh, the Tribunal gave no weight to certain documents presented to it by the applicant.

4. Having rejected the truth of the case made to it by the applicant, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugee Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.  It therefore found that the applicant is not entitled to a protection visa.

5. As I have sought to explain to the applicant, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Tribunal on their merits. It is not open to me to seek myself to investigate the truth of the claims made by him to the Tribunal. That is, it is not for me to do as the applicant asks me to do, namely, with God's help, to find the truth. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited by section 476 of the Act to specified grounds of review. Shortly put, the Court's concern is with any errors of law made by the Tribunal.

6. The applicant has appeared on his own behalf before this Court.  It is, therefore, perhaps, not surprising that he has not been able to identify any error of law in the Tribunal's decision.  My own careful examination of the decision of the Tribunal has also failed to find any error of law.  It was for the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant and the genuineness or otherwise of the documents upon which he relied.  It is a rare case in which this Court is entitled to interfere with a decision based on assessments of this kind.  This is not such a case.

7. The decision of the Tribunal will be affirmed 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 Branson.

Associate:

Dated:   18 February 2000

The Applicant appeared in person with Mr Chowdhury (interpreter)

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T. Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	14 February 2000
Date of Judgment:	14 February 2000