NAOQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 647

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAOQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 647

NAOQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N507 OF 2003 BENNETT J 26 JUNE 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N507 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAOQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 26 JUNE 2003

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 N507 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAOQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 26 JUNE 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application seeking an order primarily that the applicant's claim be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for further consideration. The applicant has appeared in person before this Court, assisted by an interpreter. In the filed application the applicant identified a number of grounds of the application including '…an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law to the fact of the case, was found by the Refugee Review Tribunal'. The remaining grounds related to factual matters or are encompassed in the above ground.

background 2 In his application (and his application for review to the Tribunal), the applicant stated that he was born on 15 January 1960. In his written statement in support of his application ('the written statement'), the applicant gave his date of birth as 1 January 1965. Be that as it may, he arrived in Australia on 14 September 2000. On 12 October 2000, he lodged an application for a protection visa. 3 In the written statement, the applicant said that he became an active disciple of Mr Barkat Ullah Khan, a Guru who, he said, is a progressive thinker of Islam, after meeting him in 1985. According to the applicant, the Guru's teachings conflicted with the interests of fundamentalist Muslims in Bangladesh. The applicant claimed that his house was looted and burned in 1992, after which he and the Guru hid. After publishing the Guru's teachings, a number of cases were filed against him in 1996. He also claimed that he visited his home to see his children in 1998 when he was attacked and beaten by villagers after which he did not return home. He claims that he could not relocate in his country, that his life is in danger in Bangladesh where, if he returned, he would be persecuted by what he called 'fanatic Muslims in my locality'. 4 A delegate of the respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 12 January 2001. The applicant sought review of that decision but, by a decision handed down on 3 April 2003, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.