Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZBFE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1162
MIGRATION – whether harassment of a Muslim man who marries a Hindu woman in Bangladesh is persecution for reasons of religion – not sufficient facts found by Refugee Review Tribunal Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 91R SZBFE v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 189, reversed in part SZBFE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 434 OF 2005 GYLES J 24 AUGUST 2005 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 434 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZBFE
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 AUGUST 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be upheld in part.
2. The order of the Federal Magistrates Court be set aside.
3. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be set aside.
4. The matter be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal to be decided in accordance with law.
5. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of this appeal and of the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court.
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 NSD 434 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: SZBFE
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GYLES J
DATE: 24 AUGUST 2005
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the decision of Driver FM dismissing an application seeking to set aside a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming a decision of the Delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) (SZBFE v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 189). 2 The appellant is a Muslim from Bangladesh. He had been in Australia for nearly four years when he first made an application for a protection visa. He claimed a fear of persecution on two bases. The first was for reasons of his political opinion, he being an active supporter of the Bangladesh National Party who had been harmed on a number of occasions by members of the rival Awami League for that reason and had been the subject of a number of false charges on that account. The second was for reasons of religion in that he was proposing to marry a Hindu woman, which had, and would, lead him to suffer serious harm. The appellant was unrepresented in the Federal Magistrates Court and is unrepresented on this appeal. 3 I am satisfied that there is no substance to the complaints made by the appellant concerning the decision of the learned Federal Magistrate in relation to claimed persecution for reasons of political opinion. I can see no proper basis upon which there can be any criticism of this aspect of the reasons for judgment to which I need not add. 4 The issue concerning persecution for reasons of religion is not so easily disposed of. The Tribunal's decision dealing with this issue is as follows: 'Dealing with the mixed marriage based claim, there is no supporting evidence of the planned marriage, or the engagement party, or the beating and subsequent injury sustained, other than the applicant's assertion. The independent information, which the Tribunal accepts, is to the effect that the people of Bangladesh are in the majority tolerant, the religious relationships are generally good, the mixed marriages are not uncommon in Bangladesh, that the law specifically recognises them, that Fastwas are required to be in writing (which this one is not) and that protection from them and other sectarian violence is provided by law, albeit more effective in cities than in rural areas. Further while inability to marry the person of one's choice is most unfortunate, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it constitutes serious harm as described in the Act.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate