Talukder v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 659

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Talukder v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 659

MIGRATION – where applicant stated in application that relocation would contravene human rights – where applicant unrepresented – where no submissions made by applicant

AMAL TALUKDER v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NO. N 86 OF 2001

JUDGE:         BEAUMONT J
DATE:           30 APRIL 2001
PLACE:         SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 86 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	AMAL TALUKDER APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed, with 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	N 86 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	AMAL TALUKDER APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE:	30 APRIL 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J:

INTRODUCTION

1. Before the Court is an application for an order of review seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”) refusing an application for the grant of a protection visa.  The issue before the Tribunal, in essence, was whether the applicant qualified for refugee status under the Convention.

2. Although the applicant was represented by a solicitor at the second hearing before the Tribunal, the proceedings in this Court were instituted by an application for an order of review filed by the applicant in person.  In that application the applicant stated, amongst other things, that the Tribunal had made an incorrect application of international law in his case, and that the principles of the Convention had been incorrectly applied.  The applicant went on to state in his application that he considered relocation within his own country would contravene his basic human rights to exercise and express his political rights and opinion within the group of people to which he belonged.  He stated:

   “I am a Bengali and have fought for Bengalis by being within this group.  I cannot be expected to dislocate myself and my family and … live in another remote state to fight for Bengalis and attract the resentment of another group of citizens who might consider me an enemy in that society and bring be new foes in a totally different society.”   (Emphasis in original).

1. The matter first came before the Court on 1 March 2001 when, by consent, the Registrar made these (amongst other) orders:  that the applicant file and serve any amended application and any further material on which he seeks to rely by 30 March 2001;  that the applicant file and serve an outline of written submissions five working days prior to the hearing;  and that the Minister file and serve an outline of written submissions two working days prior to the hearing.  The matter was listed before myself on 9 April 2001 for hearing.  As I have mentioned, those orders were made by consent.  However, at that point, and at all times in the proceedings in this Court, the applicant was unrepresented. 

1. The matter came before me for hearing on 9 April 2001.  On 6 April the Minister's submissions were filed and served, as directed.  However, no submissions were prepared by the applicant.  I raised this with the applicant at the commencement of the hearing and gave him liberty to file and serve a written submission, if he wished, indicating that I would reserve my decision and consider the material before the Court, including any submissions that he wished to file.  However, nothing has been received from the applicant.  I am therefore left with the statements made in his application for an order of review which I have previously mentioned.

1. In these circumstances, I have read the Tribunal’s reasons in conjunction with the respondent’s submissions.  I will not repeat the material in the respondent’s submissions.  But, in my view, these submissions accurately explain the background to the matter by way of introduction, and accurately, in my view, summarise the relevant findings of the Tribunal.  Moreover, in my opinion, pars 8, 9 and 10 of those submissions give good reasons why the present application must fail.

1. Accordingly, I have been unable to find any reason why this Court should intervene by way of judicial review.  In those circumstances, the application must be dismissed and I so order. 

ORDERS

1. The order of the Court therefore is:  application dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont.

Associate:

Dated:             4 June 2001

Solicitor for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	9 April 2001
Date of Judgment:	30 April 2001