NABC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 603

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NABC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 603

NABC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 420 of 2003

WILCOX J
SYDNEY
13 JUNE 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N420 of 2003

BETWEEN:	NABC APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 JUNE 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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	N420 of 2003

BETWEEN:	NABC APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	13 JUNE 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of Driver FM.  The magistrate dismissed an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The Tribunal had upheld a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Minister”) to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa.  The delegate was not satisfied that the appellant was a refugee within the meaning of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, as amended by the Protocol on Refugees.

2. The appellant failed to attend the oral hearing appointed by the Tribunal. Consequently the Tribunal had to deal with the matter on the basis of written materials.  Those materials included an assertion by the appellant that false charges had been made against him in his native Bangladesh.  However, it appears there were no details provided and the Tribunal was not prepared to accept the assertion contained in the written material.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had a well founded fear of persecution by reason of his political opinion, as he had claimed.

3. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal accepted that the appellant may have been a member of the Jatiya Party in Bangladesh.  However, after referring to the recent political history of Bangladesh, and the fact that the appellant did not claim to be a leader of the Jatiya Party, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he left Bangladesh because of a fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion.

4. When the matter was before the magistrate, the appellant apparently argued the decision of the Tribunal was unsound and requested the magistrate to set it aside and remit the matter to the Tribunal for re-hearing.  However, it appears the appellant failed to raise any issue cognisable by the magistrate; that is, he failed to argue there was an error of law or a failure to follow the requisite procedures.  That being so, it is unsurprising that the Magistrate dismissed the application for review.

5. The Chief Justice has directed that the appellant's appeal to this Court from the decision of the magistrate should be heard by a single judge.  In considering the matter, I therefore exercise the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.  I have explained to the appellant that the Court can only set aside the Tribunal's decision if it is satisfied there is an error of law or a failure to follow the requisite procedures.  However, the appellant has not advanced any contention of error of law or failure to follow proper procedures.  There is no suggestion of failure to accord procedural fairness.  I have read the Tribunal's reasons for decision.  I am unable to discern any legal error in them. 

6. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to deal with his claim of false charges being brought against him.  This did not receive specific mention by the Tribunal in its reasons.  However, the Tribunal made clear that the absence of the appellant had precluded it dealing with the detail of some of his claims.  This statement obviously applied to the general claim about false charges. 

7. I do not think there is any basis for interfering with the decision of the magistrate.  The appeal must be dismissed.

8. The order I make is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:            13 June 2003

The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms M Allars
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	13 June 2003