FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Al-Mamun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1058 JAKARIA AL-MAMUN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 323 OF 2000 EMMETT J 26 JULY 2000 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 323 OF 2000 BETWEEN: JAKARIA AL-MAMUN APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE OF ORDER: 26 JULY 2000 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. By consent, the application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's 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 323 OF 2000 BETWEEN: JAKARIA AL-MAMUN APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE: 26 JULY 2000 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 27 May 1997. On 21 September 1998 he lodged an application for protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. On 9 November 1998 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa. On 9 December 1998 the applicant applied for review of that decision. On 15 March 2000, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant now applies to this Court for an order of review of the decision of the Tribunal. 2 The grounds stated in the application are as follows: "1. In the tribunal's decision there are some errors of law. The Tribunal member unjustly refused the applicant's claim without considering the gravity of the claims; as such the Tribunal member failed to act according to section 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act 1958. 2. The Tribunal failed to act according to substantial justice and the Tribunal member did not consider the merits of the case. The applicant was not provided an opportunity to make further comments or provide any substantial documents, which would help him in his claim. As such the Tribunal member failed in accordance with section 476(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. 3. The Tribunal member referred to various materials that were not discussed at the hearing and did not refer to a number of matters that were discussed at the hearing. The member put less attention to decide the fate of the applicant's case. 4. The Tribunal member accepted that his political opponents beat the applicant on various occasions but the Tribunal member did not consider that the applicant would face more severe punishment upon his return to Bangladesh." 3 It is doubtful whether any of the matters so described as grounds in the absence of any particulars would support a successful application to this Court. However, when the matter was called on for hearing today, the applicant indicated that because of inability to obtain legal representation he did not wish to proceed with the matter and wished to withdraw from the proceedings. That course was not opposed by the Minister. However, the Minister asked for costs in his favour. The applicant requested that the Court depart from the normal practice of ordering that costs follow the event. 4 I have read the Tribunal's reasons for decision. The Tribunal's conclusion was that, while the Tribunal found that the applicant had suffered injury in 1994 and 1995, the injury that he suffered was part of a random and non-selective pattern of violence at student level in Bangladeshi politics. The Tribunal found that the applicant was a minor political player and that his claims of facing death for several years and of having to go into hiding and flee Bangladesh lacked credibility. Detailed reasons for that conclusion are set out. 5 There is nothing apparent to me from my reading of the reasons to indicate that there is a ground of review available to the applicant under section 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Accordingly, it seems to me that on the material before me the application was likely to fail. While I have sympathy for the position of the applicant, who says that he has no funds available to him, I am not satisfied that this is a case in which the usual practice should be departed from. 6 Accordingly, I propose to order that the application be dismissed by consent and, in addition, order the applicant pay the respondent's costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate: Dated: 7 August 2000 The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Ms V A Hartstein Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 26 July 2000 Date of Judgment: 26 July 2000