NADD v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2003] FMCA 203

MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – application for a protection visa – whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason – whether the Tribunal approached its task with a closed mind – whether the Tribunal’s decision was tainted by bias – whether the Tribunal made a Craig type of jurisdictional error by failing to take into account relevant considerations – whether there is a reviewable error.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.36(2)

SBAU v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 1076
Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163

Applicant: NADD

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 1383 of 2002

Delivered on: 15 May 2003

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 15 May 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Self-Represented

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J D Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,250.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 1383 of 2002

NADD

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant in this matter is in an Indian citizen who arrived in Australia on 27 August 2001.  On 25 September 2001, he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs.  On 29 December 2001, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant him a protection visa and on 14 January 2002, the applicant applied for review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 6 September 2002 and made its decision on 11 December 2002.  The decision, which was to affirm the original decision of the delegate not to grant a protection visa, was handed down on 2 October 2002. 

3. The applicant claimed that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for convention reasons based upon the fact that as a Muslim person of Tamil ethnicity he provided medicines and material for uniforms to an associate in Columbo which he accepted must have been for the use of the LTTE.  The applicant claimed that this action of his was discovered by the authorities in Tamil Nadu and he was arrested and detained for three or four days.  He claimed that he was mistreated while in detention and a friend was required to pay a bribe to have him released. 

4. The applicant claims that he relocated to his uncle's house about 60 kilometres away from his own home and although the police came searching for him, they did not discover him, or if they were aware of his whereabouts he was able to bribe them not to arrest him again.  In about July 2001, the applicant applied for and received a passport in his…