SZFRA v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFRA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 1515

MIGRATION – Persecution – review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – visa – protection visa – no failure to consider material – according little weight to evidence does not amount to rejection of the evidence.

Migration Act 1958, ss.54, 55, 91X, 430

Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407
SZGKX v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 461
NAJT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 147 FCR 51
Linett v McIntyre (2002) 117 FCR 189
Ahmed v Minister of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 811
Addo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 940

Applicant: SZFRA

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 105 of 2007

Judgment of: Cameron FM

Hearing date: 30 April 2007

Date of Last Submission: 30 April 2007

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 13 September 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. T. Ower

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr. M. S. Haque

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 105 of 2007

SZFRA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. By an amended application filed in Court on 30 April 2007, the applicant seeks review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) which was signed on 7 December 2006 and which affirmed an earlier decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“Minister”) dated 18 May 2004 refusing the applicant’s application for a protection visa.

2. The Tribunal decision the subject of these proceedings is the second such decision relating to the applicant.  There was a previous Tribunal decision made on 20 December 2004 which was quashed by order of this Court dated 21 August 2006.  (Court Book (“CB”) page 276).

3. Section 91X Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Act”) provides that the Court must not publish the applicant’s name.

Background facts

1. The Tribunal described the applicant as follows:

   … the Applicant claims to have been born in Gazipur in 1954.  He claims to have lived at the same address in Tumila, Kaligonj, Gazipur from 1986 to April 1996.  He claims to have received a total of ten years of formal education in Gazipur, ending in 1972.  He claims to have been employed in an electrical engineering company from 1976 to 1979, and from 1979 to March 1996 as an animal attendant at ICDDR, B (the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research)  He claims to have been married in Gazipur in 1978 and claims that his wife, two children and two siblings are living in Bangladesh.  (Court Book (“CB”) page 354).

2. The applicant claims to fear future persecution in Bangladesh because of his political activities and religious beliefs.

3. The facts alleged in support of the applicant’s claim for a protection…