Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ahmed v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 359
FARUQUE AHMED v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
NG 1335 OF 1998
HELY J
31 MARCH 1999
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1335 OF 1998
BETWEEN: FARUQUE AHMED
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE OF ORDER: 31 MARCH 1999
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 11 November 1998 be set aside. 2. The matter be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law. 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 NG 1335 OF 1998
BETWEEN: FARUQUE AHMED
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE: 31 MARCH 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh, although, apart from short periods, he has not lived in Bangladesh since 1983, when he was 15 years old. Thereafter the applicant lived in Muscat, Oman (1983-1987), in Ankara, Turkey (1988-1990) and in the United Kingdom (1990-1993). Whilst in the United Kingdom the applicant obtained a degree in Aeronautical Engineering. For 3-4 months in 1993 the applicant was employed by the Bangladesh Biman airline. 2 The applicant arrived in Australia on 28 January 1994 on a student visa. He came to study for a commercial pilot's licence. Apart from a brief visit to Bangladesh in early 1996, he has been in Australia ever since. 3 On 9 October 1996 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa. On 29 May 1997 the delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs ("MIMA") refused to grant a protection visa, which decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") on 11 November 1998. 4 The applicant seeks a review of that decision. Although the Application for Review refers to s 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act, the application does not disclose any grounds for review which are capable of enlivening the jurisdiction of the Court under Division 2 of Part 8 of the Migration Act. However, in written and oral submissions before me, the applicant contended: · That RRT had failed to make enquiries as to the authenticity of documents which the applicant had submitted in support of his contention that he faces politically motivated charges in Bangladesh. · That RRT accepted incidents of persecution which were similar to the applicant's situation had occurred and thus ought to have concluded that there was a well-founded fear of persecution irrespective of its conclusion upon the genuineness of the documents. No objection was taken by the respondent to the applicant's raising of these matters, notwithstanding the terms of the Application. 5 The case which the applicant put to RRT had the following elements: · Since 1994 the applicant has been an active member of the Zia Parishad of Australia and a member of the Bangladesh National Party ("BNP"). · Whilst BNP was in power, he wrote articles critical of the opposition Awami League. · After the Awami League came to power in June 1996, publication of the magazines in which the articles were written was banned, and reporters for the magazines were arrested. · An arrest warrant was issued in his name in January 1996 on false charges, and the police visited his parents' home with the warrant with a view to arresting him. · Because of his past criticisms of the Awami League, he may have problems obtaining employment as a pilot with the government airline. · He has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of his political opinion. 6 RRT made the following findings upon a consideration of the applicant's evidence, and the independent evidence with respect to conditions in Bangladesh: · The applicant is a member of the Zia Parishad in Australia and a supporter of the BNP political party in Bangladesh. · The BNP is presently in opposition and that the Awami League is the ruling party. · The applicant wrote short articles for BNP publications in which he was critical of the Awami League in the period around the most recent elections in 1996. · Journalists and editors who are critical of the Awami League government are occasionally subjected to harassment, and that one was detained for about a month before being released on bail. · The applicant does not fall into either of the categories of journalist or editor. · There is no outstanding politically-motivated false charge against the applicant in Bangladesh. · The applicant may have difficulty obtaining employment with the government airline so long as the Awami League is the ruling party but that this will not amount to persecution.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate