FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Munsi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 219 MOHAMMOD SHAHIN MUNSI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1375 of 2000 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 9 MARCH 2001 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1375 OF 2000 BETWEEN: MOHAMMOD SHAHIN MUNSI APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: SACKVILLE J DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2001 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. 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 1375 OF 2000 BETWEEN: MOHAMMOD SHAHIN MUNSI APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: SACKVILLE J DATE: 9 MARCH 2001 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application to review a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") on 13 November 2000. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. 2 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 20 February 1999, having resided for the previous ten months in Botswana. He is aged approximately thirty-one years and is single. He has a large family in Bangladesh. 3 The application to review the RRT's decision identifies two grounds of review. These are · that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision (Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Migration Act"), s 476(1)(g)); and · that the decision was affected by actual bias (Migration Act, s 476(1)(f)). 4 The application was unrepresented at the hearing. He did not file any written submissions and did not put forward any arguments to support the grounds of review specified in the application. 5 The applicant's case before the RRT was that he feared persecution in Bangladesh by reason of his affiliation with the Bangladesh National Party ("BNP"). In particular, he claimed to fear persecution from the Awami League ("AL"). He said that in 1995, he had been attacked and beaten by "armed hooligans from the AL". 6 The RRT found the applicant to be a credible witness. It accepted that he had joined the student's wing of the BNP in 1989. It found that any harassment he may have experienced prior to 1995 was not sufficiently serious to amount to prosecution. The RRT also found that the applicant had been attacked in 1995 by his political opponents. 7 The RRT formed the view, however, that there was no real chance that the applicant would be persecuted by reason of his political opinion were he to return to Bangladesh. The RRT pointed out that the applicant had lived in Bangladesh for twelve months after the 1995 incident, until he left Bangladesh in order to visit or live in other countries. No harm befell him during this period, despite the fact that the he was involved in a successful school project in his local area. Moreover, five years had elapsed since the applicant had been attacked by his political opponents in Bangladesh. The RRT was not satisfied that the AL supporters who had harmed the applicant in June 1995 would have any interest in him five years later, particularly since the applicant had not been involved in Bangladeshi politics since 1996. 8 The RRT found that, in any event, the BNP was a powerful force in Bangladesh politics, being the largest opposition party. There was no evidence that the BNP members were vulnerable to attack by the AL or anyone else. The RRT summarised the position as follows: "In the circumstances, the Tribunal is of the view that the chance the applicant would be harmed if he returned to Bangladesh and actively supported the BNP is remote. Further, given that the BNP is a legal political party that contests elections and is represented in parliament, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant could actively support the BNP without becoming involved in violence. There is no evidence to suggest that all BNP members and supporters inevitably become involved in violent clashes. In the Tribunal's view, the applicant is not obliged to participate in violent street demonstrations, and could openly participate in political activities and express his political opinion in Bangladesh without subjecting himself or anyone else to violence. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the chance the applicant would face persecution for a Convention reason if he returned to Bangladesh is remote and insubstantial. It is therefore not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution." 9 As Mr Lloyd, who appeared for the Minister, pointed out, the RRT's decision rested on two critical findings: (i) that five years after the politically motivated attack on the applicant, there was not a real chance that AL supporters would have any continuing interest in him; and (ii) that the applicant could return to Bangladesh and express his political opinion without subjecting himself or anyone else to violence. 10 There was evidence to support each of these findings. The first rested not merely on the mere passage of time since the 1995 attack, but on the fact that the applicant had actively participated in local affairs for twelve months after the attack without encountering further violence. The RRT also took into account the country information which addressed the nature and extent of political violence in Bangladesh. 11 The second critical finding was based on an assessment of the country information. It was a matter for the RRT to consider the significance of that information to the applicant's case. 12 In any event, in order for the ground of review provided by s 476(1)(g) of the Migration Act to be made out, the requirements of either s 476(4)(a) or s 476(4)(b) must be satisfied. The applicant has satisfied neither provision. 13 There is no basis for the suggestion that the RRT was affected by actual bias. 14 The application must be dismissed, with costs. I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville. Associate: Dated: 9 March 2001 The applicant was self-represented. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Lloyd Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 8 March 2001 Date of Judgment: 9 March 2001