SZEFW v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEFW & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 453

MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – citizen of Bangladesh – attempt at merits review – low profile – document fraud – adverse information – procedural fairness – obligation to inquire – no legal error – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.422B, 424A

NAAK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 113
NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264
NARV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 262
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv SGLB [2004] HCA 32

Applicants: SZEFW & ORS

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG2601 of 2004

Delivered on: 22 March 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 22 March 2005

Judgment of: Mowbray FM

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicants: In person

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Burnett

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application fixed in the sum of $4,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2601 of 2004

SZEFW & ORS

Applicants

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an ex tempore judgment which has been revised and edited from a transcript.  It relates to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 30 June 2004 and handed down on

   
   

   27 July 2004.

2. The three applicants are husband, wife and son.  The second and third applicants, the wife and son, made no claims of their own and relied on their membership of the first applicant’s family unit.  For convenience I will refer to the first applicant as “the applicant”.

3. The three applicants are citizens of Bangladesh.  They arrived in Australia on 2 November 2003 and on 4 November 2003 applied to the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (the Department) for protection visas.  These applications were refused on 19 February 2004 by a delegate of the Minister.  Appeals were lodged with the Tribunal on 11 March 2004 and two hearings were held: on

   
   

   15 June 2004 and 23 June 2004.  On 27 July 2004 the Tribunal handed down its decision of 30 June 2004 affirming the decisions of the Minister's delegate to refuse to grant protection visas.

Claims before the Department and the Tribunal

1. The applicant’s claims before the Department and the Tribunal centred on the Convention ground of political opinion, in particular on his role as an active member of the Awami League. 

2. The applicant is a 36 year old married man.  His father was involved in the war against Pakistan.  When the applicant was at Tejgaon College he joined the Chatra League, the student…