SZAHH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 296

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAHH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 296 SZAHH & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1838 OF 2003

STONE J 18 MARCH 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1838 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: SZAHH & ORS

APPELLANTS

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The first 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 1838 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: SZAHH & ORS

APPELLANTS

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 18 MARCH 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the judgement of Raphael FM of 30 October 2003. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 21 February 1992 on a student visa. Since that time he has travelled to and from Bangladesh, his latest arrival in Australia, according to the Australian Movement Database, being on 13 April 1997. His wife, the second appellant arrived in Australia in June 1997. The third appellant, their son was born in Australia on 20 March 1999. 2 The first appellant applied for a protection visa in May 2000 and the second and third appellants sought to be included in the grant of that protection visa as family members of the first appellant. In these reasons I will refer to the first appellant as the appellant. The appellant's application was refused in turn by a delegate of the respondent and by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The learned Federal Magistrate upheld the Tribunal's decision. 3 The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his political opinion arising from his activities as a member of the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, a political party that has a pure Islamic state as its goal. He said that he was very active with that group and was a well known political activist. For that reason he was targeted not only by the Bangladesh National Party ('BNP') Government but subsequently by the Awami League government and again, by the BNP when it which returned to government in 2001. 4 The appellant said that the BNP government also fabricated a charge of rape against him. That charge was pursued by the Awami League when it came to power and again, by the BNP when it returned to government. The appellant said that between 1989 and 1992 he studied in Saudi Arabia where he continued his political activities among the Bangladeshi population in that country. He claimed that he was harassed when he was a student in Saudi Arabia although before the Tribunal he was not able to give any details of this harassment.