Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1920

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Khan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1920

WAHED KHAN v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 771 OF 2000

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
13 DECEMBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 771 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	WAHED KHAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	13 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant in this matter is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 6 August 1997.  He lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Department”) and, on 28 January 1999, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused to grant the visa.  On 16 February 1999 the applicant applied for review of that decision.

2. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) was given on 26 May 2000. It refused the application for review and affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.  The applicant has now sought review of the decision of the RRT by this Court.

3. The applicant has filed a four page submission in support of the application for review.  In summary the submission indicates that he disputes the decision made by the Department as well as that of the RRT, and believes that both bodies incorrectly assessed his application.

4. The applicant refers to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and to the Department’s decision and states that there is an obvious question as to how the Department refused his application on the basis of its belief that his claims were fabricated and his documents fraudulent, and without a proper investigation.  There was also a submission made to the effect that if the decision-maker in the Department believed political violence was common in Bangladesh and the Freedom Party had become the subject of the government's enmity, rather than being a enmity based on political grounds, then the government could use its law enforcement authorities and judiciary to suppress its political opponent.

5. He contends that he did not receive a fair trial in relation to the RRT decision.  He refers to certain country information which was before the RRT, he then refers to the well known statement of the law in Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 and the subsequent developments to the law as therein stated, and then in substance simply asserts that the decision of the RRT was wrong.

6. The RRT considered, in considerable detail, the claims and evidence which was given on behalf of the applicant in this case, and made a strong finding of lack of credibility against the applicant.  This finding of lack of credibility was based on seven identified factors which raised problems of inconsistencies with most of the evidence which had been given by the applicant both internally, that is to say within the terms of the evidence proffered by the applicant, and also inconsistency with the country information.

7. One matter which did concern me in relation to this application was the fact that there is in evidence, what is known as a first information report, together with a charge sheet, and orders which appear to have been executed or signed by an official in a court or police office in Bangladesh.  The finding of the RRT in relation to these documents was that they were bogus or false. I note the findings as to the applicant's lack of credibility, and also as indicated in the decision of the RRT having regard to strong statements made in the country intelligence to the effect that it was an extremely frequent occurrence, to perhaps understate the position, that forged documents were widely used in relation to refugees from Bangladesh.  It is not for me to make a decision as to whether or not in fact the RRT made a mistake of fact in relation to these documents.  In my opinion, having regard to the country information, and having regard to the strong findings on credibility, which were substantiated by reference to a number of specific matters, I consider that there was evidence before the RRT on which the decision-maker could arrive at the decision that the documents were false.

8. In the light of this finding, it seems to me, when coupled with the strong findings in relation to lack of credibility, it was open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusion which it did.  I have carefully examined the documentation in this case, and also the submissions of the applicant, but I am unable to find that there is any reviewable error which would warrant the setting aside of the decision of the RRT, or otherwise reviewing that decision.

9. Accordingly, my conclusion is that this application must be dismissed. 

10. In this matter I think that the costs should follow the outcome of the proceeding and, the application having been dismissed, I order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs to the application.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:            22 December 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	P Braham
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	13 December 2000
Date of Judgment:	13 December 2000