SZJIT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 764

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJIT v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 764

SZJIT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 383 OF 2007

MARSHALL J
18 MAY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 383 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJIT
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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 383 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZJIT
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	18 MAY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He appeals from the judgment of a Federal Magistrate who refused his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’).  The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. 

2. The appellant entered Australia on 9 March 2004.  He applied for a protection visa on 15 April 2004.  He claimed that he feared persecution if returned to Bangladesh on account of his religion, which he said was “Ahmedia” Muslim.

3. On 9 July 2004, the Minister’s delegate rejected the appellant’s application for a protection visa.  The delegate observed that the appellant did not provide any details of “personally suffering any harm or mistreatment in Bangladesh of such a nature and severity as to constitute persecution in terms of the Convention”.  The delegate also observed the appellant:

   ·provided no evidence of his faith, despite such evidence being easily available through the Ahmadi organisation in Australia;

   ·had a “very low profile”;

   ·was able to leave Bangladesh with ease, on his own passport, which is valid for return to Bangladesh; and

   ·waited more than five weeks between arriving in Australia and applying for a protection visa.

4. On 1 April 2005, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.  The appellant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision to the Federal Magistrates Court, but after consent orders were filed, the review application was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal (‘second Tribunal’).  The second Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision on 16 August 2006.  The Court below refused relief in respect of the second Tribunal’s decision. 

5. The second Tribunal accepted that the appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh, but did not accept that he belongs to the Ahmadi faith.  At p 8 of its decision, the Tribunal said:

   …His answers to my questions about Ahmadi beliefs showed an ignorance of basic principles and practice. Finally, when he did produce documents appearing to confirm his adherence to the Ahmadi faith, they turned out not to be genuine. I do not accept the applicant’s explanation that there may be a conflict of interest involved in the information the Australian High Commission received. The Ahmadi are a small community in Bangladesh and the trouble they have there is well publicised in the local and international media. They therefore stick closely together and support one another. The Tribunal’s experience is that the advice received from their authorities as to whether or not a person is an Ahmadi is reliable.

6. The Tribunal considered the appellant to be untruthful and did not accept that he was ever subject to harm in Bangladesh by reason of being an Ahmadi or that he had false charges lodged again him.  Consequently, the Tribunal gave no weight to documents the appellant submitted, including a medical report and court papers. 

7. Before the Court below, the appellant complained about the Tribunal’s failure to place weight on the medical report and court papers.  The Federal Magistrate considered that the weight to be given to those documents was a matter of fact for the Tribunal to determine and that no judicially reviewable error arises from the weight given to a document. It is unsurprising, in any event, that the Tribunal gave no weight to the documents in question as it considered them not to be genuine.

8. The other grounds relied on before the Federal Magistrate, and rejected by his Honour, also failed to identify any judicially reviewable error.  One ground challenged the reliance by the Tribunal on information from the Australian High Commission in Bangladesh on which it was entitled to rely.  The other sought to quibble with the ultimate factual finding of the Tribunal that the appellant did not face a real chance of persecution if returned to Bangladesh.

9. The grounds and submissions relied on in the Court below were relied on once more on appeal.  They did not improve with repetition.

10. The appeal is devoid of merit and must be dismissed, 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 Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:       18 May 2007

The Appellant represented himself.
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr J Mitchell
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	DLA Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	18 May 2007
Date of Judgment:	18 May 2007