S1506 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 812

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1506 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2006] FMCA 812

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where applicant makes allegation about conduct of Tribunal but does not produce transcript – whether court book evidences jurisdictional error – whether Tribunal should make its own investigation relating to the applicant’s claims.

Migration Act 1958
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Seyfarth v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1713
M164/2002vMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 16
S1194/2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 469
Minister for Immigration v NAOS of 2002 [2003] FCAFC 142

Applicant: APPLICANT S1506 OF 2003

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

File Number: SYG603 of 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 22 May 2006

Date of Last Submission: 22 May 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 22 May 2006

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J Smith

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $5,000 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG603 of 2004

APPLICANT S1506 OF 2003

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia on 4 January 1996.  On 12 January 1996 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.  On 4 July 1996 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 1 August 1996 the applicant sought review of that decision.  The Tribunal held a hearing which the applicant attended on 10 September 1997, and the applicant provided the Tribunal with written submissions and translated copies of certain documents.  On 24 November 1997 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. 

2. The applicant's claim to have a well‑founded fear of persecution for the Convention reason of political opinion arose out of his association with the Jatiya Party who he claimed to have joined as a student member in 1983 at the age of 11 years.  He claimed to have remained a member of the student wing until 1991 and had been a local office holder for a period of a year, after which he was not re‑elected.  The applicant claimed to fear the supporters of the Bangladesh National Party.  At [CB 103] the Tribunal says:

   “The applicant acknowledged at the Tribunal hearing that, prior to the change of government in 1990, he did not experience problems with political opposition groups.  But after the BNP gained power he claimed that the Jatiya Party members were put in gaol.  He said that it was the supporters of the BNP that he feared after the change of government.  In response to a question of why he feared the BNP, he replied that he had seen others beaten by supporters of that party.…