Nabi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 839

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nabi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 839 MD NUR NABI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 98 OF 2000 MANSFIELD J 5 JUNE 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 98 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MD NUR NABI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER: 5 JUNE 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay to the respondent costs of the application to be taxed. 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 98 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MD NUR NABI

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 5 JUNE 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 11 January 2000. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The Court, in hearing the application for review, is restricted to the grounds of review available under s 476(1) of the Act. In the present circumstances where the applicant has appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter, I have endeavoured with some care to identify what it is that the applicant seeks to argue on this application. 2 Before referring to the grounds of review as I perceive them, it is necessary to note a little of the background. The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He is aged forty-one. He is married with two sons, but his family is still in Bangladesh. He left school in 1973 and worked thereafter as a cook in the merchant navy. He lived in Bangladesh until 1996, except for a period of about two years between 1991 and 1993 when he lived in Saudia Arabia. He left Bangladesh on 23 October 1996 and arrived in Australia on a seaman's visa on 7 January 1997. He applied for a protection visa under the Act on 30 June 1997. 3 The Tribunal recorded the general nature of his claims. He joined the Jatiotabadi Dal Party in his local area in December 1978. That party was opposed to or opposed by the Awami League. As the Tribunal found, sometimes that opposition was violent and uncontrolled. In 1982, following a military coup, he was detained for about one week in April 1982. After that, he was arrested and beaten on several occasions during the 1980s. In 1990, following the election, the Bangladesh National Party ("the BNP") came to power. That was the party with which he was associated. During the period of its government, the Awami League was the opposition party, and sometimes it provided a violent opposition. The applicant claimed to have been attacked by the Awami League and severely injured on 29 April 1994 because of his activities on behalf of the BNP. 4 In the 1996 elections, the Awami League came to power. The applicant claimed then that, shortly after the election, his house was looted and he and his family were threatened. He also claimed that, on 15 August 1996, his house was again looted by members of the Awami League and his family threatened. He said that the gang of members of the Awami League were then looking for him to kill him, but he was not at home. The applicant then escaped from Bangladesh by working on a ship. He eventually found his way to Australia. 5 The applicant fears that he will be killed by members of the Awami League if he returns to Bangladesh. He claims to have had a significant profile in the BNP during the period of its government, sufficient to make him a target for the Awami League members. He also claims that members of his family have been harassed by the Awami League as recently as 1999. 6 The Tribunal's reasons are set out in a conventional manner, containing reference to the applicant's claims and to the evidence, the general background evidence concerning Bangladesh, and then the section headed, "Reasons for Decision". 7 In its Reasons for Decision, the Tribunal referred to the applicant's claims and made findings about them. Its conclusion appears in the following passage: