NACF v Minister for Immigration

[2003] FMCA 288

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NACF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2003] FMCA 288

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where the application discloses only a submission about the Tribunal’s decision – where no grounds for review are articulated by the applicant.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B

Federal Magistrate Court's Rules, Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a)

Kamal v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 818
W148/00A v Minister for Immigration [2001] FCA 679

Applicant: NACF

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 1382 of 2002

Delivered on: 23 May 2003

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 23 May 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Lloyd

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,250.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 1382 of 2002

NACF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, who is a person who originates from Bangladesh, arrived in Australia on 19 October 1999 as the holder of a student visa.  After attending classes for a few days on 25 November 1999, he applied for a protection visa (class XA).  On 29 February 2000, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant such a visa and on 9 March 2000 the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. 

2. Some two years later the Tribunal dealt with the applicant's claim.  In accordance with its obligations, it considered the written material provided by the applicant in detail and decided that it was unable to grant a protection visa on the basis of that information alone.  It therefore arranged for a hearing, which was attended by the applicant.  The Tribunal's decision which is found between pages 62 and 82 of the Court Book indicates the matters upon which the Tribunal had sufficient concern to require the applicant to appear for an oral examination.  The Tribunal notes that the hearing was attended by an officer of UNHCR.  The decision itself reflects a close attention to detail and to the obligations of the Tribunal under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

3. The well founded fear of persecution for a convention reason stated by the applicant was his membership of the Bihari group of "stranded Pakistanis".  He claimed that as a result of his membership of this group he suffered persecution in Bangladesh.  The persecution which the applicant described appears to involve pressure from a family friend for the applicant to give up his inherited right to certain shops and property which he received from his father.  At [CB 78] the following appears:

   “ The Tribunal asked the applicant what would happen if he returned to Bangladesh.  In reply he said that his late father's friend would hurt him because he wanted his property.”

4. Although there is some evidence that the applicant suffered at least discriminatory conduct whilst he…