NAQZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 1298

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAQZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 1298

NAQZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N629 of 2003

MADGWICK J
5 NOVEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N629 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NAQZ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 NOVEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant 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	N629 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NAQZ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	5 NOVEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application purportedly made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), seeking a factual reconsideration of the applicant's claim to be a refugee and as such, entitlement to a protection visa. The applicant came to Australia on 11 June 2001 and on 18 June he lodged an application for such a visa. A delegate of the respondent Minister refused the application and the applicant sought a review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal handed down its decision on 6 May 2003 after a hearing which had been held on 4 March 2003.

2. The applicant claimed a fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion.  He is a Nigerian national of Ibo ethnicity and he claimed to have been arrested, tortured and charged with treason after attending a flag raising demonstration in Aba in May 2000, which had been organised by an Ibo separatist leader and an organisation founded by him.  The applicant says that in July 2000 he attended, in another city, another meeting organised by that organisation when many arrests were made.  He thereafter escaped to the neighbouring country of Benin, although he returned to his own country a year later to depart from Lagos for Australia on a

   
   
   

   passport issued in his own name.  He says that the passport was issued as a result of bribery.  He claimed to fear arrest, violence and an unjust trial for treason if he returned to Nigeria.

3. The Tribunal Member, having seen and heard the applicant, did not believe his story, apart from the facts of his nationality and ethnicity, and sought to check it with independent country information, finding that there was no report of the applicant having been charged with treason, unlike a number of other members of the organisation who had been charged.  The Tribunal found that the applicant's story had varied from the time that it was first told to the delegate, and that the applicant appeared to have falsely placed himself in the middle of publicly reported, untoward events; namely, the flag raising ceremony and the subsequent meeting at which a number of people were arrested.  The Tribunal Member concluded that any fears held by the applicant were not well-founded.

4. The application to the Court says that the applicant is appealing to this Court:

   ‘To look into my case because our members [that is of the organisation concerned] are still been killed and my life is not safe if I go back to Nigeria.’

5. Arrangements were made to have an Ibo interpreter attend Court today but a message has been received that the arranged interpreter cannot, on account of illness, come.  The applicant is not legally represented.  He sought an adjournment claiming to be unable to put to the Court what he would have wished to say without an interpreter.  He has an accent but is clearly an educated man and he speaks English quite well enough to understand the proceedings and, in reality, to tell me what he wanted to.  He appears, understandably enough, to have been under some misunderstanding as to the very limited ability of the Court to intervene to correct what he thinks is an injustice that he has suffered at the hands of the Tribunal.  He has no legal or procedural criticisms of what the Tribunal did.  He simply wants the Court to “consider his plight”.  If there were any material defect in his ability to speak and understand English, as he has no legal case to run, he would not in any event be assisted by having an interpreter.

6. Whatever factual merits there may be in his claims, as to which I say nothing, there is clearly no legal merit in this application and it will be dismissed.

7. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             25 November 2003

The applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	5 November 2003
Date of Judgment:	5 November 2003