SZATD v Minister for Immigration - [2004] FMCA 586

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZATD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2004] FMCA 586

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – affirming a delegate’s refusal for a protection visa – no reviewable error found.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.474

Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

Applicant:

SZATD

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No:

SZ1049 of 2003

Delivered on:

17 September 2004

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

12 August 2004

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter.

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr R Bromwich

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,500 pursuant to Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ1049 of 2003

SZATD

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

This is an application for a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) handed down on 2 May 2003 affirming the decision of a delegate of the respondent made on 30 July 2002 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The applicant, who is a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia on 2 June 2002. On 27 June 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).
On 30 July 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 19 August 2002 the applicant applied for review of that decision by the Tribunal. On 27 May 2003 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa.

The history

The applicant is a Muslim and claims that in January 2001 he converted from a Sunni faith to the Ahmadiyya (“Ahmadi”) faith. The Ahmadi sect differs from other Muslims in believing the prophet Mohamed was not the last prophet. They believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed born in Quadian (1835-1912) was the last prophet of Islam.
The applicant was married in 1992 and has two daughters. The applicant and his family lived with his parents in Dhaka until he was forced to leave the family home as a consequence of his conversion to the Ahmadi sect.
The applicant claimed to fear persecution for reasons of his religion in Bangladesh. As a result of his conversion to Ahmadi Muslim in 2001, he claims to have been ostracised by his family and friends and to have been injured in February 2001 when a crowd attacked an Ahmadi mosque in Dhaka. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant claimed that he had also been attacked on 7 March 2002 when his passport had been stolen.

The Tribunal’s decision and reasoning

The Tribunal had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SZATD v Minister for Immigration

Details

AGLC: SZATD v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 586
Case: [2004] FMCA 586
Decision Date: 17 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021. The parties involved in this case are SZATD, the applicant, and the Minister for Immigration, the respondent. The dispute centres on the applicant's application for a visa under the Migration Act 1958, which was refused by the Minister. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to determine included whether the Minister's decision to refuse the visa was lawful, rational, and supported by the evidence. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable due to a failure to consider relevant information and an incorrect application of the Migration Act. The court was tasked with reviewing the decision-making process and assessing whether the Minister had exercised their discretion appropriately.

The court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and rational, and adequately supported by evidence. The applicant's argument that the Minister had failed to consider relevant information was rejected, as the court found that all relevant factors had been taken into account. Additionally, the court determined that the Minister had exercised their discretion correctly and in accordance with the law. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,500 pursuant to Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.