NADQ v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2003] FMCA 184

MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – application for protection visa – whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution – where the Tribunal made findings on credibility – where the genuineness of documents is an issue – whether there is a duty to inquire – where applicant alleged errors of fact.

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (1999) 168 ALR 407

Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Cassim (2000) 175 ALR 209
Abebe v  Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Waterford v The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CL 54

Applicant: NADQ

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 1380 of 2002

Delivered on: 9 May 2003

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 9 May 2003

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Self Represented

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R J Bromwich

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 1380 of 2002

NADQ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is Bihari from Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia on

   
   

   17 September 2000.  On 24 October 2000, he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 13 February 2001, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant him a protection visa and on 7 March 2001 he applied for review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal interviewed the applicant on 18 September 2002.  It came to its decision on 19 September 2002 and handed it down on 15 October.  The applicant was represented by an immigration agent at the hearing.  The applicant now seeks a review from this court by way of an application filed in the Federal Court on

   
   

   8 November 2002. 

2. The application filed by the applicant was in a form which would be familiar to most judicial officers considering these matters where the applicant is originally from the sub-continent.  It lacks a certain amount of specificity but on 5 May 2003, the applicant filed some more detailed submissions contained in a four-page document dated 2 May 2003.  Those submissions are well written in English and have been addressed by the respondent.  I will take it that those submissions form the best case that can be put forward by the applicant.  The applicant arrived in Australia on a passport issued in Bonn, most of the pages of which are reproduced in the court book between [CB 26-29].  The applicant claimed that he no longer has this passport having lost it on the way to a meeting.  He claims that the passport was purchased and that therefore it is not evidence that he is a person who holds Bangladeshi citizenship.

3. The applicant's claims to have a…