Sanjit Das v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 1017

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sanjit Das v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[1999] FCA 1017

SANJIT DAS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N246 of 1999

WILCOX J
15 JULY 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N246 of 1999

BETWEEN:	SANJIT DAS Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	15 JULY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. WILCOX J: This is yet another case where, in my belief, if there had been competent legal advice available to the applicant, the matter would not have come to Court. 

2. The applicant, Sanjit Das, is a citizen of India.  He sought a protection visa on the ground of having a reasonable apprehension of persecution on the ground of his political opinion.  The Tribunal member accepted many of the claims made by Mr Das but did not accept the genuineness of certain documents that he tendered at the hearing.  Nor did she accept many of the factual claims he made.  In the result, the Tribunal member was not satisfied there was a real chance that Mr Das would face serious harm if he were to return to India.  She affirmed the decision of the Department not to grant to Mr Das a protection visa.

3. Mr Das sought review of the decision of the Tribunal in this Court.  He appeared in person.  Mr Das understands some English; but he felt this was insufficient for the purpose of the hearing and he has had the benefit of the interpretation services of an interpreter, Mrs Maharaj.  I express my thanks to her for her assistance.

4. Before I came into court I read the Tribunal's decision. I gave consideration to the question whether it evinced any error that would entitle the Court to interfere with the decision, having regard to the Court's limited powers set out in s476 of the Migration Act 1958. When I commenced the hearing, I pointed out to Mr Das the limited basis upon which the Court was entitled to interfere with a Tribunal decision and, in particular, that the Tribunal had the function of determining the facts of the case. I indicated to him I had not discerned any s476 error in the decision.

5. Mr Das had filed a submission and I went through this with him. I pointed out it did not identify any error of law. Mr Das then read a statement in which he referred to the facts of the case and indicated why he disagreed with the Tribunal's decision about them. The statement did not identify any error of law. At the end of the hearing I was left in the position of having had no error identified, that would fall within s476 of the Act.

6. It follows that the application for review must be dismissed. I would like to say I accept that Mr Das is genuine in his expression of concern about his fate if he returned to India. However, the fact that an applicant sincerely entertains an apprehension does not mean the Tribunal is bound to conclude there is a sufficient objective basis for finding a risk of persecution. In the present case, the Tribunal was not satisfied about that matter. I say nothing about the Tribunal's finding; that is a matter for the Tribunal, not the Court. I merely say I have been unable to discern, either through Mr Das' submissions or as a result of my own consideration of the case, any error of the Tribunal that would fall within s476 of the Act.

7. The application must be dismissed.  I so order.  The applicant must pay the costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             15 July 1999

The Applicant appeared in person with the aid of an interpreter, Mrs Maharaj.
Counsel for the Respondent:	T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	15 July 1999