SZATH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 1350
•8 OCTOBER 2004
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZATH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1350
SZATH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1126 OF 2004TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
8 OCTOBER 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1126 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN:
SZATH
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is 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
NSD 1126 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN:
SZATH
APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
8 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate, refusing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 19 May 2003, which had upheld the decision of a Ministerial delegate not to grant the appellant a protection visa.
When this matter came on for hearing before me I invited the appellant to outline his complaints against the decision of the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate. The appellant raised two matters. The first was that there was an error in the Tribunal’s finding that he was not a political leader. This matter is dealt with in the ‘Findings and Reasons’ section of the Tribunal’s decision, and while it is accepted, with some doubt, that he had participated in the political party as claimed, it was found that the level of his participation was not sufficiently prominent to place him in danger of persecution. This is a matter of fact and degree properly considered by the Tribunal, and I am not persuaded that any error of law or principle has been established to indicate that this finding should be reviewed as erroneous or set aside.
The second matter raised, orally, by the appellant was that the Tribunal erred in not investigating allegedly false claims made against him. It is said that the Tribunal should have inquired of the Court in Bangladesh, or taken other investigatory measures concerning the appellant’s case in Bangladesh. The Tribunal considered the appellant’s claim and concluded, on the basis of adverse credibility findings and independent country information from sources other than the appellant, that there was no substance to this claim. It appears that none of the country information relied upon was specific to the appellant, and therefore there was no obligation on the Tribunal Member to point to that information, or to specifically draw it to the attention of the appellant in the present case. The Tribunal noted that even if there was some substance to the claims nevertheless Bangladesh has an independent court system capable of affording effective protection to which the appellant could have resorted.
As a further alternative, the Tribunal considered that it would be possible for the appellant to relocate within Bangladesh where he would not be persecuted, since the claimed fears centred on the Dhaka area. The Member formed the view that it would be obvious and reasonable for the appellant to move to another part of Bangladesh.
I should add that an important part of the reasoning of the Tribunal was based on a series of variations in the case advanced by the appellant. The Member pointed out the appellant had five opportunities to present his case and that there were significant changes at various stages throughout the course of the proceedings in relation to the precise nature of his claims.
I have considered the Tribunal’s reasoning and do not find any jurisdictional error. I have considered the grounds of appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrate set out in Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 16 September 2004, and am not persuaded that there is any substance to any of those grounds of appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal with costs.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate:
Dated: 19 October 2004
The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter Counsel for the Respondent: R Francois Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 8 October 2004 Date of Judgment: 8 October 2004
0
0
0