NAAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 582

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAAL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 582

MIGRATION – appeal – protection visa – appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrate – whether Refugee Review Tribunal acted in bad faith or was biased

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(1A)
Migration Act1958 (Cth) s 424A, 424A(3)(b)

Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 referred to

NAAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 275 OF 2003

HELY J
16 JUNE 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 275 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAAL APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JUNE 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal is dismissed with 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 275 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAAL APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	16 JUNE 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 11 April 2000.  He applied on 19 April 2000 for a protection visa on the ground that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh by reason of his political opinion.  The application was refused by the Minister’s delegate on 15 May 2000.  The appellant applied for a review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”).  By a decision dated 26 July 2002, handed down on 20 August 2002, the RRT affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.

2. The RRT accepted the appellant’s claims that he was a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) and that he held positions in the BNP both in student politics, and subsequently in a local constituency in the lead up to the 1996 parliamentary elections.  The RRT also accepted the appellant’s claim that he supported one BNP candidate against Mr Bulu, another BNP candidate.

3. However, the RRT did not accept the appellant’s claims that false charges were laid against him, of which he was convicted in absentia, nor did it accept the appellant’s claim that he would be the target of either Awami League supporters, or supporters of Mr Bulu, in the event of his return to Bangladesh.  In its written reasons, the RRT explains why it did not accept these claims.  As to the first, the RRT found that the appellant had twice departed, and once re-entered Bangladesh, as a seaman using his own passport.  Were the appellant to be the subject of government attention as he claims, in the RRT’s opinion he would have been easily found by the government…