SZHDG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1090

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHDG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1090

SZHDG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1041 OF 2006

STONE J
17 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1041 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZHDG
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	STONE  J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s 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 1041 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZHDG
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	STONE  J
DATE:	17 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant seeks an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from the decision of Smith FM made on 4 April 2006.  His Honour dismissed the applicant’s application for review of the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. 

2. Order 52 r15(1) of the Federal Court Rules requires that any notice of appeal from Smith FM’s decision be filed within 21 days of the decision.  Ordinarily, this would require the applicant to have filed his notice of appeal by 25 April 2006.  As 25 April 2006 was Anzac Day, a public holiday, the time for filing was extended to 26 April 2006 by O3 r2(4).  The applicant did not meet this deadline but filed an application for an extension of time on 30 May 2006. 

3. The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, claims to have converted to Christianity in 2001 whilst living in Bangladesh.  In his visa application and at his hearing before the Tribunal, he claimed to fear physical violence from both Muslim fundamentalists and the Bangladeshi police for his Christianity and for his association with the Awami League (a political party).  Specifically, the applicant claimed that in October 2004 a “fanatic Muslim group” attempted to kill him and issued a fatwa against the applicant.  He claims that the Bangladeshi police did not protect him from this group.  The applicant made further, unspecified claims about threats and violence in Bangladesh. 

4. The applicant came to Australia in late October 2004.  Evidence before the Tribunal indicated that, at least since the early part of 2005, the applicant has been involved with activities designed to introduce adults to the Christian faith at a Catholic church at Ashfield in Sydney.  The Tribunal heard evidence from Sister Sullivan, a Sister of St Joseph, about the applicant’s participation in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) during that time.  Sister Sullivan’s evidence was to the effect that the applicant was not a Christian but was interested in converting.

5. The Tribunal made significant adverse findings about the applicant’s credibility.  The Tribunal commented that the applicant’s oral evidence was given in an unconvincing manner and that he demonstrated a lack of knowledge about fundamental aspects of Christianity.  This lack of knowledge was inconsistent with the applicant’s claim that he attended church for several years and that he had converted to Catholicism in 2001.  Furthermore, the applicant’s evidence as to the manner of his alleged conversion to Christianity in Bangladesh was implausible and internally contradictory and his evidence about his religious practices in Bangladesh was vague.  Finally, the Tribunal also found that the applicant’s evidence about his political activities was ‘vague and unconvincing’.  The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had any association with the Awami League as claimed.

6. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had ever converted to Christianity. It rejected his claims to have had any interest in Christianity in Bangladesh or to have attended church or engaged in any Christian activities there. The Tribunal found that the applicant had fabricated his evidence about his interest and involvement in Christianity in Bangladesh and consequently found that his participation in religious activities in Australia was solely for the purpose of strengthening his application for a protection visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal disregarded evidence of these activities, pursuant to s 91R(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

7. The Federal Magistrate considered these adverse findings as to the applicant’s credibility and the plausibility of his account of what happened to him in Bangladesh and as to the religious activities that the applicant has engaged in whilst in Australia were open to the Tribunal.  His Honour found no error in the Tribunal’s reasoning that would entitle the applicant to the relief he sought.

8. In support of his application for an extension of time, the applicant stated that he did not know about the time limit for the filing of the notice of appeal and could not afford legal representation.  The draft notice of appeal that the applicant sought to file with his affidavit listed two grounds of appeal, neither of which was particularised. 

9. At the hearing of this application the applicant was not able to point to any error in the Tribunal’s reasons or any mistake that the Tribunal had made.  In essence, all his comments related to the Tribunal’s assessment of the merits of his case and his complaint that the Tribunal was in error in not believing him.

10. I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that a notice of appeal filed by the applicant would be successful.  The Tribunal’s decision relied upon adverse findings as to the applicant’s credibility.  Put simply, the Tribunal did not believe the applicant’s account.  I can find no jurisdictional error in the manner in which these findings were arrived at and therefore find that there is no basis on which to interfere with the Federal Magistrate’s decision.  Accordingly, I must dismiss the present application 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 Stone .

Associate:

Dated:         17 August 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	17 August 2006
Date of Judgment:	17 August 2006