NAKP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1316

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAKP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1316 NAKP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 912 of 2003 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 17 NOVEMBER 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 912 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: NAKP

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 17 NOVEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant 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 912 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: NAKP

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 17 NOVEMBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for prerogative relief in relation to a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT"). The RRT, by a decision made on 19 February 2003, affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister"), made on 12 March 2001, not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 13 December 2000. On 17 January 2001, he lodged an application for a protection visa, apparently with the assistance of a migration agent. The appellant claimed that he had been a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ("BNP") and that he had been attacked by Awami League ("AL") members. The appellant also claimed that he had been falsely and maliciously charged with serious crimes, including the murder of an AL leader. He had left Bangladesh because the police and AL members had been searching for him and he feared for his life. 3 As noted, the delegate rejected the appellant's application for a protection visa. On 9 April 2001, the appellant sought review of the delegate's decision. The application for review was supported by a detailed typewritten letter signed by a different migration agent than the one who had assisted the appellant with his original application. 4 On 23 December 2002, the RRT advised the appellant that it was unable to make a decision in his favour on the material before it. He was invited to attend a hearing on 19 February 2003. Prior to that hearing, the migration agent forwarded a number of documents to the RRT which were said to support the appellant's case. 5 The hearing took place as scheduled and continued for nearly five hours. At the conclusion of the hearing, the RRT announced its decision and indicated that a copy of its reasons would be sent to the appellant within 14 days. The reasons were in fact forwarded to the appellant on 24 February 2003.