Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1096

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1096

Migration Act 1958

MD MAZIBAR RAHMAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 461 OF 2001

HEEREY, EMMETT & ALLSOP JJ
8 AUGUST 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 461 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	MD MAZIBAR RAHMAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	HEEREY, EMMETT & ALLSOP JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	8 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal is dismissed.

2.        The appellant 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 461 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	MD MAZIBAR RAHMAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HEEREY, EMMETT & ALLSOP JJ
DATE:	8 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HEEREY J:

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of this Court who dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The appellant was represented by counsel before the primary judge but it would appear since then has not had legal representation. His notice of appeal gave as the only ground “His Honour erred in failing to find that the Tribunal erred his decision under section 476(1)(g), section 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act 1958”.

2. Through an interpreter on the hearing of the appeal the appellant said he “Wished that my background may be considered”, and that he had “Given in the book and requested that it be considered”.  The respondent had filed written submissions and appellant said that they were “not right”. 

3. In my opinion the appellant has not shown any ground for this Court to interfere with the decision of the primary judge.  Of course, this Court cannot review the merits of the appellant’s claim before the Tribunal.  The Court can only consider whether any error was made in the primary judge’s reaching the conclusion that he did.  No error has been identified.

4. In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.

   EMMETT J:

5. I would agree.

   ALLSOP J:

6. I agree.  I would only add one matter.  The ground under paragraph 476(1)(g) is predicated on there being no evidence in respect of a relevant finding.  His Honour the primary judge approached this on the basis that there might be taken to be a finding, though expressing some doubt about that.  The relevant factual matter was towards the end of the Tribunal’s reasons where the Tribunal said that it was not satisfied by the evidence that the relevant incidents were indicative that the Awami League was specifically targeting the appellant.  In my view, that is not a finding for the purposes of s 476, rather it is a statement of a lack of satisfaction on the evidence.  Even if it be the case that it could be treated as a finding, I find no error in the way the learned primary judge otherwise dealt with that matter on that issue or on any other issue in his reasons; and for those additional reasons as well as the reasons expressed by the learned presiding judge, I would dismiss the appeal.

   HEEREY J

7. The order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Heerey, Emmett and Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:             9 August 2001

Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant was not legally represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	8 August 2001
Date of Judgment:	8 August 2001