Naro of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1465

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NARO of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2002] FCA 1465

NARO OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 834 of 2002

MADGWICK J
26 NOVEMBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N834 of 2002

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT NARO OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed with 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	N834 of 2002

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT NARO OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	26 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is another hopeless case.  The applicant is a disappointed applicant for refugee status dissatisfied with a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister. 

2. The factual background helpfully summarised by counsel for the respondent Minister is as follows.  The applicant was born in Bangladesh in 1970, and is now thirty-two years of age.  She was educated in Bangladesh.  She arrived in Australia on 27 November 1999 and on 10 January 2000 lodged an application for a protection visa claiming refugee status.

3. The burden of her claim was that from a very early age, indeed from the age of nine, she was involved in politics, having followed her father into the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“the BNP”).  She claimed that by the age of fourteen, she was elected General Secretary of her school’s branch of that party and that she became immersed in politics while attending college from age fourteen to nineteen.  So immersed was she that she failed to take an important school examination in 1986 because of the level of her political activities.

4. The Tribunal Member disbelieved the applicant in her claim to be a committed BNP activist on account of the high unlikelihood that she was involved in political activity to the extent claimed while she was at school.  The Tribunal Member referred to the applicant’s ignorance of basic and relevant facts about the BNP which she might have been expected to know, including that Khaleda Zia was the BNP leader from 1991 onwards, during the time that she claimed to have been a political activist.  The strangeness of this was greatly compounded because the applicant had claimed that the BNP had changed under Zia’s leadership and as a result she had lost interest in it. 

5. The applicant’s claim that she had been harassed by a group of Awami League members was also disbelieved on the basis that her claim appeared to have been “modelled” on an actual incident that had attracted much press publicity and for other seemingly cogent reasons.

6. In any case, the Tribunal Member dismissed the possibility that a BNP sympathiser might face persecution in Bangladesh.  The BNP was, at the time of the Tribunal’s hearing and decision, now the party in government in Bangladesh following “an overwhelming majority” in the October 2001 election and had, as the Tribunal Member found, “operated freely and robustly at all levels of politics while in opposition from 1996-2001”.

7. The Tribunal Member finally considered whether the applicant might face persecution as a woman or a political activist on the basis that an Islamist (that is to say reactionary Islamic) party, Jama’at Islami (“JI”), was a member of the ruling coalition of parties.  The Tribunal Member referred to JI’s limited influence in the coalition, based on the BNP’s rejection of the implementation of the concept of an Islamic Republic, and to the apparent fact that “women take a full share in the political and professional life of Bangladesh despite the country’s Islamic base, as exemplified by the leaders of the two main parties”.

8. The application to the Court contains the following “details of claim” in the application:

   “1.The procedures that were required to be observed in accordance with the Migration Act 1958 in connection with the making of the decision were not observed;

   2.The RRT breached the rules of procedural fairness by failing to give the applicant an opportunity to comment on information, which the Tribunal relied to make its decision.

   3.The Tribunal made the decision without any authorities.  The Tribunal misjudged the fate of the applicant’s claim.

   4.The Tribunal failed to consider the current situation prevailing in Bangladesh.

   5.The Tribunal also failed to articulate the material facts of the case.

   6.The Tribunal did not consider that the political party which the applicant belonged had changed its policies in respect to pro-liberation forces within the party and out side [sic] of the party.”

9. In the supporting affidavit the applicant says:

   “1.      The Tribunal made a number of errors to decide my review.

   2.I was deprived of receiving natural justice.

   3.I have a real fear of persecution, which was denied by the Tribunal without any basis.

   4.I was not considered by the Tribunal as a refugee in accordance with the United Nations Convention 1951 as amended 1967 protocol related to the status of refugees.

   5.If I return home I will be a victim of inter party feuding.  My opponents will be the anti liberation forces within the party.  This was not taken into the account by the Tribunal.

   6.The Tribunal failed to consider the material facts of the claim.

   7.The Tribunal decision is not justifiable.”

10. For the reasons articulated by counsel for the Minister in her written submissions there is no substance whatsoever in any of these grounds and, if there were, s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) would not be overcome.

11. As I said at the outset, the case was hopeless and must be dismissed with costs, which I will so order.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:            3 December 2002

Applicant appeared in person with an interpreter.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms R M Henderson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	26 November 2002
Date of Judgment:	26 November 2002