Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1561

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1561

AKRAM HOSSAIN KHAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1031 of 2001

CARR, CONTI AND STONE JJ
5 NOVEMBER 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1031 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	AKRAM HOSSAIN KHAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	CARR, CONTI AND STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	5 NOVEMBER 2001
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	N 1031 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	AKRAM HOSSAIN KHAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	CARR, CONTI AND STONE JJ
DATE:	5 NOVEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. Upon the basis of brief reasons for judgment, the primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”), which affirmed the decision of the respondent’s delegate to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. Those reasons for decision of the RRT may be summarised as follows:

   (i)the RRT had formed the view that the appellant’s true name was Mohammed Abdur Rahim (being the name shown on the passport which he presented on arrival in Australia), and not Ahram Hossain Khan (being the name on a new passport which the Appellant produced to the Tribunal) as he claimed;

   (ii)in any event, the RRT took an adverse view of the appellant’s credibility, on the basis that his testimony as to most aspects of his claims was vague, unconvincing, contained significant internal inconsistencies, and was inconsistent with independent country information; and

   (iii)the appellant’s claim that he had been persecuted for reasons of his political opinion, and further that he had a well-founded fear of persecution had not been made out.

2. The primary judge found that the appellant had not been able to identify any error of law on the part of the RRT, and that the decision of the RRT must be affirmed.

3. The sole ground of appeal the subject of the notice of appeal is as follows:

   “The appellant is not happy with the whole of the judgment made by the Single bench of the FCA on 20 June 2001 and non-compliance with s 476(1)(g), 476(4) of the Migration Act.”

4. Such ground of appeal is in the circumstances plainly not even remotely viable.

5. A submission in writing bearing date 2 October 2001 has been provided to us in advance by the appellant. The document does not purport to distil any error of law on the part of the primary judge, but comprises at best an advocacy of the case for review of the merits substantially to the effect placed before the primary judge.

6. At the hearing of the appeal before the present Full Court, the appellant sought to tender a bundle of material, partly in the nature of country information, and partly related to personal circumstances of the appellant, being a course of action to which counsel for the respondent objected. The hearing was temporarily adjourned to enable the members of the Court to read such material. Having done so, the Court, of necessity, upheld the respondent’s objection, partly on the basis that, apparently, some of the material had not been placed before the respondent or the RRT, and partly on the basis that it merely repeated of what had already been considered by the RRT. Plainly the nature and content of the material made it inadmissible by a Full Court and outside what can be legitimately taken into account on appeal.

7. The appellant also advanced oral submissions to us, none of which were admissible upon or material to the grounds of appeal postulated in the appellant’s notice of appeal. Such submissions included the following:

   (i)he had been a worker for the BNP party;

   (ii)he had purchased for “a lot of money” the passport which he used for travelling to Australia, and he had no alternative but to adopt that course;

   (iii)he had produced such false passport to the Department of Immigration, and the Department raised no objection to the document; and

   (iv)subsequently he disclosed to the Department the true situation concerning his identity, and for that purpose he produced his true passport and birth certification; neither original documents, nor copies thereof, were tendered.

8. Such submissions did not establish any viable basis in law for review of the decision of the RRT, which was to the effect that it was not satisfied, for the reasons therein stated, that the appellant was either an opposition leader or an activist who has or would attract particular interest by the government or the authorities in Bangladesh, and was not otherwise satisfied as to any well-founded fear of persecution on his part.

9. No viable ground of appeal according to law has been provided by the appellant, orally or in writing. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Carr, Conti and Stone.

Associate:

Dated:             7 November 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	5 November 2001
Date of Judgment:	5 November 2001