Rana v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rana v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1007

MASUD RANA V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NO N 370 OF 2000

JUDGE:         BEAUMONT J
DATE:           7 JULY 2000
PLACE:         SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 370 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	MASUD RANA APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 JULY 2000
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	N 370 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	MASUD RANA APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE:	7 JULY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J:

1. Before the Court is an application for an order of review filed by the applicant on 18 April 2000.  The applicant has at all times been unrepresented.  The application seeks judicial review of a decision nominally of the Minister, but I would interpret that to be of the Tribunal, being the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 14 March 2000.  By that decision the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  

2. In his application the applicant specified a number of grounds as the basis for his application, and asserted that they amounted to an error of law “being an error involving an incorrect interpretation or the application of the law to the facts”.  In order to understand the issues that arise for the Court’s determination, it will be necessary to refer to some of the reasoning in the Tribunal’s reason for decision, as follows.

3. The applicant, who is a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia on 14 October 1995.  In November 1995 he lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958.  As has been noted the Minister’s delegate refused to grant that visa.  

4. In its summary of the claims and evidence before it, the Tribunal noted that this material included written submissions in support of the application, tapes of an interview with a departmental officer, further written submissions to the Tribunal and oral evidence given by the applicant to the Tribunal.  The applicant’s claims were set out in a covering letter written by his adviser, Mr Joel.  In essence, the claims were that as a Bihari, the applicant had faced “consistent instances of discrimination” which placed “serious restrictions upon the applicant’s capacity to have a normal life within Bangladesh”.

5. In summarising the applicant’s claims and his evidence, the Tribunal noted the claim that as a small child the applicant spent three years with his family in a Red Cross camp established for Biharis, that is to say, those displaced persons who identified with Pakistan but who upon the declaration of independence of Bangladesh in 1971, were not entitled to go to Pakistan.  The Tribunal noted the claim made by the adviser that following their departure from the camp, the applicant’s family led a “hand-to-mouth existence”, although the applicant was able to attend school and later university.  Notwithstanding this, it was claimed that on graduation the applicant felt that “he would not have any prospect with respect to obtaining work in the Bengali Government”.  For this reason the applicant came to Australia in late 1995 and has remained here since. 

6. The Tribunal further noted that in his application to the Tribunal for review, the applicant made a new claim.  This new claim was later supported by an amount of documentation.  The claim was that the applicant’s father was a classmate and cousin of a local political figure who had recently been murdered in Bangladesh.  The adviser submitted that “turbulence and instability prevails within his local area” so that the applicant and his father, by virtue of their relationship to the deceased, were at risk.  Included in the documentation mentioned were extracts from newspaper articles reporting on the assassination of the politician.  Other documents relied on included letters referring to the creation of “a terrorising situation in the village against the supporters and family members of the deceased”.  There is also a letter written to the applicant on the letterhead of an advocate in Dhaka dated 24 March 1998 referring to the murder and saying:

   “Now there is no peace and tranquillity in our district so you are hereby directed not to come back in Bangladesh at this moment, as your life is also insecured.”

7. The Tribunal, in referring to the oral evidence given to it by the applicant, noted the applicant’s claim that:  Biharis suffered discrimination in Bangladesh;  that his family was struggling;  and that the evidence that he himself had not suffered discrimination, for example his good education, was misleading.   The Tribunal noted that the applicant had informed it that he had had to attend university at night and supported himself by working at menial, badly paid jobs during the day.  He told the Tribunal that he had not attempted to find professional work on graduation because he knew that he would be discriminated against and would not find such a position.  The Tribunal noted that the applicant had completed a TAFE course since being in Australia but the applicant informed the Tribunal that he “had many enemies in Bangladesh who would harm him”.  

8. The Tribunal went on to say:

   “The Tribunal put it to him that he had made no such claims originally in relation to any person specifically wishing him harm before his departure for Australia.  He was not able to provide any information at hearing about any harm that he had suffered in Bangladesh other than that the police would harass him (although no details were given); that his family had to keep moving; and that they got teased, apparently in relation to their status as Biharis.”

9. The Tribunal noted that from the material before it that there was not evidence that the applicant had ever been arrested or detained by the police or any other authorities.  The evidence also established that the applicant possessed a genuine passport.  The Tribunal also noted the evidence of the applicant that his family was no longer living in the same area as they were at the time of his father’s relative’s murder. 

10. In its findings the Tribunal noted that the applicant had been unable to provide any details of the alleged discrimination and hardship in Bangladesh before 1995.  The Tribunal also found that despite the applicant’s claim of being able to find no more than a menial part-time job, the applicant had in fact been appointed to a professional position after graduation and through that position had been sent to Australia by his employer.  The Tribunal further noted that the applicant speaks fluent Bengali so that he is not linguistically disadvantaged in obtaining employment in Bangladesh:  some Biharis are disadvantaged because they speak only Urdu,  that is, the Pakistani language spoken by many of the older Bihari or those politically committed to repatriation to Pakistan. 

11. The Tribunal said that it was not satisfied that the applicant had suffered harm, let alone harm amounting to persecution, by reason of his Bihari ethnicity in Bangladesh before coming to Australia.  The Tribunal was satisfied that his chance of being so harmed in the reasonably foreseeable future was remote.

12. With respect to the claim that the applicant would be harmed if he were to return because of his relationship to a murdered political figure, the Tribunal noted that the assassination took place more than two years previously and there was no evidence to indicate that interest in the case was ongoing.  The Tribunal also noted that the family had moved away from the area where the murder took place and that there was no indication that there was any basis for fearing such violence in the new locality.  Moreover, the Tribunal was satisfied that the appropriate authorities in Bangladesh were neither unwilling nor unable to protect any further possible targets of hostilities.  The Tribunal further found that the applicant was free to move anywhere about his own country so that the chance that the applicant may be harmed in the future for a convention reason was remote. 

13. The applicant has supported his application to this Court by a five page written submission.  In the submission, which was received by the Court on 5 July by facsimile transmission, the applicant reiterates the claim that the Bangladesh authorities continuously tried to discriminate against his family members, harassing and torturing them, it is claimed, along with other members of the Bihari community in Bangladesh, “due to our stateless status”.

14. The submission claims that the authorities had confiscated the mobile and immobile properties of all Bihari communities and “forced upon us the option to repatriate to Pakistan”.  The submission goes on to state that initially the Pakistani Government accepted some Bihari repatriates but after some time the Pakistan Government chose to ignore any repatriated Biharis from Bangladesh so that the rest of the repatriates were forced into a camp by the Bangladesh authorities currently under the supervision of international organisations.

15. The submission goes on to refer to the claim that the applicant’s family members were placed in a refugee camp where the family remained until 1975, when they were able to escape from the camp.  The submission refers back to earlier events in the life of the applicant’s parents when they were settled in the former East Pakistan in 1947 but that, since independence, the Bangladesh Government had accused his family of collaborating with the Pakistan armies during the time of the liberation war so that the family was “forced with the option to go to Pakistan” and, accordingly, their national status ceased.

16. The submission reiterates the claim made to the Tribunal concerning the assassination of the applicant’s father’s cousin claiming that the local media put a false picture upon the news by describing it as an issue of internal rivalry with the intention of keeping the situation “out of the eyes of the international organisations”.  The submission goes on to reiterate the claim of the oppression of the Bihari community members in the light of their stateless status which remains unchanged.  The applicant also mentions that he was educated as a private student and was deprived of education and employment “due to my lack of Bangladesh status”. 

17. I have considered the material but it does not appear to me that the findings and reasoning of the Tribunal disclose any error of law.  As has been mentioned, the applicant has, in recent times at least, been unrepresented, although, he did have the benefit of Mr Joel’s advice at an earlier stage.  It does not appear to me, however, that the tenor of the applicant’s submissions to the Court are any more than an attempt to re-agitate the factual conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. 

18. It must inevitably follow that this Court has no jurisdiction and no power to intervene in the matter.  So much has been made clear by a number of decisions of the High Court of Australia in recent times and this approach has been reinforced by the legislative statements of the Parliament, which have made it clear, beyond question, that this Court is to have no authority to intervene in factual matters which are within the province of the Tribunal. 

19. The application is therefore dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont.

Associate:

Dated:             28 July 2000

Solicitor for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	V Hartstein
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	6 July 2000
Date of Judgment:	7 July 2000