SZMAG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] FCA 1254

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMAG vMinister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1254  

SZMAG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 743 OF 2008

MOORE J
11 AUGUST 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 743 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZMAG
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 AUGUST 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs, fixed in the sum of $2,200.

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 743 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZMAG
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	11 AUGUST 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 6 May 2008: SZMAG v Minister For Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 599 in which the Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 22 January 2008. In that decision the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  His claims for a protection visa were substantially founded on his membership of the Jatiya Party and the probability that he would be targeted by the Purbo Bangla Sarbahara Party. 

3. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant was a member of the Jatiya Party, but concluded that he was, at most, a most minor functionary in that party.  It concluded that he would not be the subject of persecutory conduct by members of the Sarbahara Party, and ultimately concluded that the appellant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his political opinion.  The Tribunal went on to consider, probably unnecessarily, the question of whether the appellant could relocate in Bangladesh and concluded that he could. 

4. In this appeal the appellant again raises the three grounds upon which he sought to challenge the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. The grounds were:

   (1)The Tribunal had acted in bad faith;

   (2)The Tribunal failed to consider the reasonableness of the appellant’s relocating in Bangladesh; and

   (3)The Tribunal had failed to properly or adequately consider the material furnished by the appellant, which according to the appellant, demonstrated that he did have a well-founded fear of persecution. 

5. The Federal Magistrate rejected each of these grounds and I can discern no error in approach adopted by the learned Federal Magistrate.  Accordingly, the appellant has failed to establish any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate and the appeal should be dismissed with costs, fixed in the sum of $2,200.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        15 August 2008

The Appellant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore

Date of Hearing:	11 August 2008
Date of Judgment:	11 August 2008