NATF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 195

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NATF v Minister For Immigration And Multicultural And Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 195

NATF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 814 OF 2003

GYLES J
6 FEBRUARY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 814 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NATF APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

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	N 814 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NATF APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the Refugee Review Tribunal made an oral decision on 17 June 2003, affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant claimed a fear of persecution in Bangladesh by reason of his religion, namely, as an Ahmadi Muslim.

2. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not an Ahmadi Muslim and that he was what it described as an impostor.  The applicant's grounds for seeking review by this Court disclosed no particulars of any breach which would lead to any relief.  It is true that there is a claim of actual bias.  There is a claim, implicitly, at least, of bad faith, and a claim of a breach of the rules of natural justice.  There are, as I say, no particulars of any of these claims.

3. In his oral submissions today, the applicant points to the fact that the decision of the Tribunal was given on the spot following the hearing by the Tribunal of his account of the matter, and I presume that it is intended to suggest that that is evidence of bias, lack of good faith or in some way a breach of the rules of natural justice.  It does not follow from the fact that an oral and immediate decision was given that there is any bias, lack of good faith, or that the rules of natural justice have not been complied with. 

4. The Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to consider the facts as presented by the applicant and it is for the Tribunal to be satisfied or not satisfied as to the establishment of those facts.  The decision that the applicant was not what he claimed to be in relation to his religion and his adherence to a particular religious group was entirely a matter for it, and in its decision it explains why it came to the decision that it did.  This Court is in no position, and has no jurisdiction, to review the merits of that finding.  It may be that the applicant has a sense of grievance about it, but that is not something which this Court is able to rectify.

5. Bearing in mind the lack of any jurisdictional error, there is no necessity to be concerned about the effect of s 474 of the Migration Act1958 and in my view the applicant fails to establish a case.  It is inevitable that the application is to be dismissed.

6. The order of the Court is application dismissed.  The respondent seeks costs.  I can see no proper basis on which costs can be refused.  The order of the Court is application dismissed.  The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:            8 March 2004

Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	6 February 2004
Date of Judgment:	6 February 2004