Judgment delivered by Mowbray FM on 21 September 2005 as

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S320 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (CORRIGENDUM)

[2005] FMCA 1355

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – citizen of Bangladesh – low-level political activities – violence in Bangladesh – political opinion – whether Tribunal failed to consider claims – persecution – no jurisdictional error – application out of time – dismissed.

Migration Act 1958, s.477

Chan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong (1997) 191 CLR 559
NABE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 263
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 73

SAAP & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24

Applicant:

APPLICANT S320 of 2003

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 1382 of 2004

Judgment of:

Mowbray FM

Hearing date:

23 November 2004

Date of Last Submission:

23 November 2004

Heard at:

Sydney

Delivered at:

Canberra

Delivered on:

21 September 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

L Karp

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Parish Patience Immigration Solicitors

Counsel for the First Respondent:

M Allars

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $5000.

CORRIGENDUM

Judgment delivered by Mowbray FM on 21 September 2005 as [2005] FMCA 1355

Amend paragraph 32 to read:

Having carefully considered the applicant’s claims and submissions, I am satisfied that the Tribunal made no legal error going to jurisdiction in coming to its decision.

Delete paragraph 33.

Amend paragraph 34 to read:

The application must be dismissed with costs.

_____________________________________________________________________I certify that the preceding three paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Judgment [2005] FMCA 1355 of Mowbray FM.

Associate: Helen Athanasiadis

Date: 10 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal in the case of S320 of 2003. The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision to refuse his claim for a protection visa, primarily based on the assertion that he would face persecution due to his political activities in Bangladesh. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider his claims of political persecution and associated risks of violence.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the applicant's claims and whether such errors were jurisdictional. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the application was time-barred, as it was filed beyond the statutory deadlines. The applicant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider his political activities and the risk of persecution in Bangladesh, while the respondents argued that the Tribunal's decision was correct and that the application was out of time.

In rendering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the Tribunal's decision and the evidence presented. The court found that the Tribunal had indeed considered the applicant's claims but had concluded that they did not meet the threshold for refugee status. The court held that there was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision and that the application was indeed out of time. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents. The court's reasoning was that the Tribunal's decision was within its jurisdiction, and the application was not filed within the prescribed time, thus barring the court from exercising its jurisdiction over the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established