SZBCB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1292

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBCB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1292

MIGRATION - appeal from Federal Magistrates Court – no point of principle

SZBCB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 714 OF 2005

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
9 SEPTEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 714 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:	SZBCB APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 SEPTEMBER 2005
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 714 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

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

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	9 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Federal Magistrate Raphael (“the Federal Magistrate”) made on 20 April 2005 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) handed down on 9 July 2003, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Minister”) to refuse to grant a protection visa.

2. At the hearing before me today, the appellant appeared in person and made some statements, however, he did not advance any substantial reason or direct me to any part of the judgment of the Federal Magistrate or the reasons of the Tribunal that was alleged to be in error.

3. I have considered the reasons of the Tribunal and of the Federal Magistrate in this matter.

4. The Tribunal noted in its findings and reasons that the appellant claimed to have suffered persecution because he was a Bihari and, as a consequence, had to leave Bangladesh.  The appellant claimed that if he was returned to Bangladesh he was at risk of persecution because of the fact that he is a Bihari.

5. The Tribunal addressed the legal principles and then found that the appellant's evidence was vague, generalised, lacked specific detail, and was inconsistent and unconvincing in relation to most aspects.  The Tribunal member did not consider that the appellant was a reliable or credible witness.

6. The Tribunal found that the appellant was a Bangladeshi national and reasons were given for this conclusion, including the fact that the appellant speaks Bengali and had a Bangladeshi passport.  There was consideration of the appellant’s passport, and the appellant’s claim that the passport was false and that money was paid to an agent to obtain the passport, in the reasons for decision of the Tribunal.  The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the passport, which indicated that the appellant is a Bangladeshi national, that he had lived in places other than the camp, that he frequently travelled in and out of Bangladesh without any problems, and that he was a student at the time of issue of his passport in 1997 and was in the private service.

7. The conclusion of the Tribunal was that it was unable to accept that the appellant was a stateless stranded Pakistani as he claimed or that he lived in a specified camp or that he was involved in Bihari protests and political activism.  These are all questions of fact and raise no point of principle.

8. The Tribunal also had regard to country information of a general nature and found that it was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Convention.

9. I have considered the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate in this matter dismissing the application for review of the decision of the Tribunal and can find no error of principle or law.

10. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal in this matter with costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin

Associate:   Dated:            19 September 2005

The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	9 September 2005
Date of Judgment:	9 September 2005