SZBTB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1924

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBTB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1924

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 418, 424A

SZBTB AND SZBTC AND SZBTD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD2023 OF 2005

MADGWICK J
SYDNEY
13 DECEMBER 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2023 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZBTB
FIRST APPELLANT

SZBTC
SECOND APPELLANT

SZBTD
THIRD APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed with costs.

2.The costs of the first respondent, assessed in the sum of $3,000, are to be paid by the first and second appellants.

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 2023 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SZBTB
FIRST APPELLANT

SZBTD
SECOND APPELLANT

SZBTD
THIRD APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	13 DECEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 10 October 2005 by Federal Magistrate Barnes.  Her Honour was dealing with an application by a husband, wife, and infant child for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’).  The claims for refugee status were entirely based on alleged experiences and fears of the appellant husband and father, and it will be convenient to refer to him as ‘the appellant’, just as her Honour referred to him as ‘the applicant’ in the court below.

2. The appellants are citizens of Bangladesh who came to Australia in November 2002.  The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion.  His claim was that he had been involved in student politics, joining the student wing of the Jatiya Party while at college, and had gone on to become a publicity secretary and active organiser of that Party’s local district committee in the area where he lived.

3. He claimed that he and his family had been persecuted by both of the main political groupings in Bangladesh, the Awami League, and the Bangladeshi National Party.  For reasons which the Tribunal gave, it disbelieved significant aspects of the appellant’s evidence, suggesting that it was, as the learned Federal Magistrate put it, ‘confused, implausible and inconsistent’, and finding that the appellant had ‘exaggerated and embellished some claims and abrogated others in an attempt to create the profile of a refugee.  It did not consider the appellant to be a credible or reliable witness’.

4. Likewise, the Tribunal found the appellant wife’s corroborative evidence to be vague and lacking in detail.  Various documents provided by the appellant in support of his claims were considered by the Tribunal, but as her Honour put it, they did ‘not outweigh the problems that [the Tribunal] had with the [appellant’s] own evidence and were problematic in themselves’.  The Tribunal concluded overall that the documents had been fraudulently obtained in an effort to bolster the appellant’s claims for refugee status.

5. Overall the Tribunal was simply not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion or for any other convention reason.

6. The amended application to the Federal Magistrates Court was, as counsel for the respondent suggests, in the form of a ‘template’, at least as to most of it. It contained occasional actual references to matters that could have related to the appellant’s own case, but in general consisted of unparticularised claims of breaches of ss 418 and 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by the Tribunal, breach of the rules of natural justice, bad faith, and unreasonableness, and breach of procedures. Her Honour, one may say patiently, dealt with these matters apparently fully and carefully and in a way that does not, on its face, bespeak any error.

7. The notice of appeal to this Court is, as counsel for the respondent describes it, also:

   ‘a “template” document making vague allegations that are meaningless in the absence of specific connection to the Tribunal’s reasons.  It refers in part to “the delegate”, and complains about a finding as to relocation not being open even though the Tribunal made no such finding.  It does not appear to have been drafted having regard to the Appellant’s case before the Tribunal or Her Honour’s judgment, and plainly raises no case to answer on appeal.’

   Mr Reilly has exhibited restraint in thus describing the notice of appeal.  The document is ridiculous, and an indication of somebody simply going through the motions in order to obtain more time in Australia. I do not see why I should dignify it any further. 

8. Nothing, as I said, in her Honour’s judgment appears to be erroneous.  The appellant, who appears unrepresented today, neither filed written submissions nor wished to address the Court, saying simply that he had said everything he wished to say before the learned Federal Magistrate. 

9. The inevitable result is that the appeal must be dismissed with costs, which I assess in the sum of $3,000.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             5 January 2006

Solicitor for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Tim Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	13 December 2005
Date of Judgment:	13 December 2005