Applicant S231/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1655

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S231/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1655

APPLICANT S231/2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1007 OF 2003 SACKVILLE J 17 NOVEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1007 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S231/2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 17 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an order nisi 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 NSD 1007 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S231/2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 17 NOVEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The High Court has remitted to this Court an application for an order nisi requiring the respondents to show cause why constitutional writs should not be issued in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('RRT') handed down as long ago as 12 March 1998. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing the applicant a protection visa. 2 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 2 June 1995. On 4 July 1995, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. On 26 February 1996, a delegate of the second respondent ('the Minister') refused to grant the applicant a protection visa. On 26 March 1996, the applicant sought review of that decision in the RRT. 3 It appears that, following his unsuccessful application to the RRT, the applicant joined in a class action ultimately determined by the High Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601. On 28 May 2003, after that decision, the applicant filed the application seeking constitutional writs in the High Court. 4 I consider it appropriate to deal with the remitted application on the papers. 5 The RRT rejected the applicant's claim to fear political persecution in Bangladesh. The RRT found that the applicant had fabricated his alleged involvement in the Jatiya Party, his claims to have been falsely implicated in a murder case and his claims of involvement with a terrorist group. The RRT gave cogent reasons, on the basis of implausible elements of the applicant's account and his lack of knowledge of certain matters, for rejecting his claims. 6 The applicant has filed an outline of submissions in which he raises three grounds: · the RRT failed to observe the requirements of procedural fairness; · the RRT made an error of law amounting to jurisdictional error; and · the RRT failed to accord the applicant natural justice. 7 The first and third grounds overlap. They appear to be based on what is said to have been a failure by the RRT to take account of documentary evidence. In fact, the RRT's decision does refer to certain documents produced by the applicant in support of his case. There is nothing to indicate that the RRT did not take this material into account in making its findings. Indeed, the RRT specifically found that the applicant had obtained false papers for the purpose of implicating himself in a murder case. 8 The applicant's submissions in support of the contention that the RRT committed jurisdictional error appear to raise only questions about the merits of the decision. 9 The applicant also complains about the RRT not raising with him suspicions about a 'warrant order' from a Bangladeshi court. The RRT gave a number of reasons for rejecting the applicant's account of his alleged conviction on false charges. It is clear from the RRT's account of the evidence at the hearing that the veracity of his claims was in issue and that he was closely questioned about his claims. The questioning of the applicant by the RRT could only have been on the basis that the documentation provided by the applicant was false. 10 In my opinion, the applicant has not made out an arguable case that the RRT committed a jurisdictional error. The application for an order nisi should therefore be dismissed, with costs. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.