SZAIZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 954

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAIZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 954

MIGRATION – claimed extortion on basis of religion – Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) dismissed claim as extortion not motivated by religion – RRT also found that Hindus in Bangladesh are not a persecuted group – whether RRT failed to take account of relevant information – whether findings open to RRT – whether bias demonstrated – no jurisdictional error demonstrated – appeal dismissed Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(1A) Kordan Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation 2000 ATC 4812 referred to SCAS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 397 referred to SZAIZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 107 OF 2004 HELY J 26 JULY 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 107 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZAIZ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE OF ORDER: 26 JULY 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed with 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 107 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZAIZ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE: 26 JULY 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Raphael FM delivered on 23 January 2004, in which his Honour dismissed an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the RRT') made on 20 November 2002. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the appellant. By direction of the Chief Justice made pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the appellate jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the appeal is to be exercised by a single judge. 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He is a Hindu. He worked as a shopkeeper in Chittagong in Bangladesh, and he claimed that prior to his departure from Bangladesh in the middle of 1999 he was targeted by fundamentalist Muslims because of his religion. False charges were brought against him and he had been the subject of serious and successful attempts at extortion. He claimed that he had been beaten up when he declined to pay some extortion money, that he was unsuccessful in going to the police about the matter, and that because he felt his life was in danger he left Bangladesh for Australia. He arrived here on 25 July 1999. 3 Three issues arise on the hearing of the appeal to this Court: (a) the appellant made a claim in relation to suffering extortion and associated threats. The RRT rejected this claim. The appellant says the RRT fell into jurisdictional error in rejecting this claim. (The 'extortion issue'); (b) the appellant made a claim in relation to the general situation of Hindus in Bangladesh. The RRT rejected this claim. The appellant says that the RRT fell into jurisdictional error in rejecting the claim. (The 'Hindus in Bangladesh issue'); and (c) the Tribunal found that, in any event, the appellant could relocate to Dhaka. The appellant says the RRT fell into jurisdictional error in making this finding. (The 'relocation issue').