Naji v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 412

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAJI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 412

NAJI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N114 of 2003

MADGWICK J
28 APRIL 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N114 of 2003

BETWEEN:	NAJI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIR RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s 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	N114 of 2003

BETWEEN:	NAJI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIR RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	28 APRIL 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application for judicial review brought under s 39B of the Judiciary Act1903 (Cth). It attacks the validity of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which was handed down on 29 January 2003.

2. The application, in the parts which are comprehensible, asserts that the applicant was deprived of an opportunity fully to present his case to the Tribunal; that the Tribunal failed to act according to substantial justice; that the merits of the case were ignored by the Tribunal Member and that the applicant is “… not satisfied with the RRT Member’s comments regarding my real chance of persecution in Bangladesh”.  The accompanying affidavit refers to factual matters and indicates an intention to lodge “… further submission and document ASAP”.

3. In submissions prepared for him allegedly without fee by a migration agent, further assertions that might have something to do with jurisdictional error include “that procedures that were required to be observed under the Migration Act 1958 in connection with the making of the decision were not observed”; that “the Tribunal misjudged faith of the applicants claim”; that the Tribunal’s ignoring of relevant evidence and its finding in the face of contradicting independent evidence indicate actual bias; that the RRT has failed to investigate the applicants claims. References are made to Plaintiff S157 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2003) 195 ALR 24 and to SGDB v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) FCA 74 and to Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors and Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601.

4. The applicant is a Bangladeshi national who came to Australia on 15 June 2000, travelling on a Bangladeshi passport in his own name issued in June 1999.  He applied for a protection visa on 10 July 2000.  On 10 August 2000 a delegate of the respondent Minister refused that application and on 5 September 2000 the applicant applied for review of that decision.  

5. At a hearing before the Tribunal on 12 November 2002, the applicant was represented by…