SZASB v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZASB & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 496

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution which is politically motivated – where applicant submitted large number of documents to the Tribunal – whether it was sufficient for the Tribunal to find that the applicant’s evidence was not credible and not reach a specific conclusion as to the genuineness of the documents – whether the Tribunal obliged to make independent investigations – whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the alleged persecutory incidents were politically motivated.

Applicant S341/2003 v MIMIA [2004] FCA 168
Dranichnikov v MIMA (2003) 197ALR 389
NAQS v MIMIA [2003] FCA 1137

Applicants: SZASB & SZASC

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 984 of 2003

Delivered on: 6 August 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 6 August 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Applicant in Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G R Kennett

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $3,500.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 984 of 2003

SZASB & SZASC

Applicants

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicants in this matter are husband and wife who are citizens of Bangladesh. They arrived in Australia on 15 October 2000.  On 27 October 2000 they lodged an application for protection (Class XA) visas with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 5 February 2001 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant protection visas and on February 2001 the applicants applied for a review of that decision.  The applicants were interviewed by the Tribunal and they had the assistance of a migration agent.  The applicants produced a very substantial amount of material in support of their case.

2. The proceedings were conducted by the male applicant and it would appear that his wife does not have any separate claims but is being considered as a person to whom Australia has protection obligations by virtue of her being part of the male applicant's family unit.

3. At [CB 314] the major issues to be considered by the Tribunal in the applicant's case were set out by his migration agent. They were five.  The first involved a rivalry between the applicant and some high profile senior BNP leaders when the applicant was in charge of a commercial building construction.  The second related to some fear arising out of the applicant's divorce from his ex wife and her relations who it was claimed also had connections with the BNP. The third was claimed to be a political dispute between the applicant and a former BNP member of parliament also arising out of a commercial enterprise.  The fourth matter was a dispute between the applicant and his cousin who…