NANH v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NANH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 45

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where applicant alleges failure to consider evidence presented in support of claim – where application was produced for applicant by his “friend” – where applicant had no understanding of the nature and purpose of this document – where applicant essentially seeking merits review – where credibility of applicant affected because of inconsistent claims made – where allegation of bad faith made but not particularised. 

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.427

SBBS v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 361

Applicant: NANH

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 1212 of 2003

Delivered on: 28 January 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 28 January 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Kennett

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,500.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 1212 of 2003

NANH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 24 December 2000.  On 9 January 2001 he lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) Visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 8 March 2001 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant him a protection visa and on 26 March 2001 the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of that decision.  The applicant was represented by a migration agent and on his behalf submissions were made to the Tribunal and a hearing was held in February 2003.  On 14 February 2003 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant a protection visa and handed down that decision on 11 March 2003. 

2. The applicant was aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal and on 4 April 2003 filed an application in the Federal Court seeking a review of the decision.  The application takes a form which has become familiar, it is stated in paragraph one:

   “The Refugee Review Tribunal has not attended any evidence in relation to the applicant's claims and thus it's decision is influenced by sufficient doubts.  The applicants provided a suitable vehicle and most of the grounds relied upon facts and documents, which the Tribunal did not consider.  The RRT heavily depended in their handling of the issues based on the generalised facts and findings of DIMIA.”

3. The general complaint of ignoring of evidence is carried through the other nine paragraphs which make reference to cases such as Walton v Philip Ruddock, The Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1839, Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163, Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 and R v Hickman; ex parte Fox and Clinton