SZBBM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 700

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBBM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 700

SZBBM V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1842 OF 2004

MADGWICK J
26 MAY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1842 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SZBBM APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, assessed in the amount of $4,500.

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	N 1842 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	SZBBM APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	26 MAY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J:

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Raphael FM given on 19 November 2004 in a case in which the appellant had sought judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) handed down as long ago as 22 July 2003. 

2. The appellant is apparently a citizen of Bangladesh who came to Australia on 6 November 2001.  He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country for reasons of political opinion arising out of involvement and membership of the Awami League, one of the main political parties there.

3. He gave a detailed statutory declaration supporting his application for a protection visa but submitted no other document in support of his application.  On 15 January 2002 a delegate of the Minister, in writing, invited the appellant’s comments on certain adverse material.  The appellant did not respond.  The delegate refused his application in February 2002.

4. In March 2002 the appellant lodged his application for review with the Tribunal.  On 10 January 2003 the Tribunal advised the appellant that it was not able to make a favourable decision on the information he had provided and invited him to attend a hearing on 6 May 2003.  The appellant’s migration agent responded, repeating the appellant’s claims and providing a letter purporting to be from the Jubo League, a manifestation of the Awami League from the area in which the appellant lived, together with various photographs and newspaper articles.  The appellant attended the hearing before the Tribunal and gave evidence.  The Tribunal accepted that the appellant was a supporter and member of the political entities as claimed, however the Tribunal, for reasons given, did not accept that he was ever an office bearer of any of those entities or that he had ever attended university in Dhaka where he had claimed to have significant political involvement. 

5. In the light of those major areas of disbelief of the appellant, the Tribunal took the following view of the letter which the migration agent had put before it:

   ‘When viewed in the context of the evidence given by the applicant about his student and political activities at hearing the Tribunal gives the information in that letter little weight.’

6. The Tribunal rejected, also for reasons given, other somewhat alarming allegations made by the appellant, including that his father had been kidnapped and that false murder charges had been laid against him at the behest of his political opponents. 

7. Independently of disbelief of the appellant, the Tribunal found, among other things, that if the appellant did not wish to return to the place of his former resident in Bangladesh he could relocate to another part of Bangladesh, where he would not be well known, and that in all the circumstances, such a relocation would be reasonable.  The Tribunal gave reasons for this opinion.

8. In an amended application in the lower court, it seems that the appellant there raised the following grounds for seeking a review of the Tribunal’s decision. The first concerned an alleged breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).  The second was a matter of natural justice concerning the letter and photographs.  The third was that the Tribunal did not consider possible socio-political changes in the reasonably foreseeable future in Bangladesh which might mean that the appellant’s fears were justified on a longer view than a short term view.  The fourth was that the Tribunal’s decision ‘was not based upon circumstances giving a rational foundation for the belief entertained’ by the Tribunal if it had applied the appropriate legal criteria and that this ‘meant that the [Tribunal] should have been satisfied that the [appellant] had met those criteria’.

9. The learned Federal Magistrate dealt with and dismissed each of those grounds for reasons that he gave.

10. The grounds in the notice of appeal here again raise questions of s 424A of the Act and of procedural fairness or natural justice. It is also asserted that the Tribunal failed to act in a bona fide manner and that the Tribunal:

    ‘… failed to find the real picture [of] torture [of] political party members and relied upon outdated reports to determine the state of affairs in Bangladesh.’

11. The appellant declined the opportunity to make any written submissions to the Court and he declined the opportunity to make any oral submissions.  He is self represented.  I do not infer from his silence that there is nothing that can be said in support of the grounds of appeal.  However, that is my own independent conclusion in the matter.  The appeal is quite worthless and should be dismissed with costs.

12. Costs are assessed in the sum of $4,500.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             3 June  2005

Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms R Francois
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	26 May 2005
Date of Judgment:	26 May 2005