SZFAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1062

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1062

SZFAT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 682 OF 2006

JACOBSON J

9 AUGUST 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 682 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFAT

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: JACOBSON J DATE OF ORDER: 9 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The Appellant pay the First Respondent's costs of the application. 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 682 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZFAT

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: JACOBSON J

DATE: 9 AUGUST 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant's notice of appeal states three grounds of appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Emmett dated 20 March 2006. The learned Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa. The RRT's decision contained detailed reasons and findings including lengthy references to the evidence. Nevertheless, the first two grounds in the notice of appeal rely upon s 430 of the Migration Act. That section requires the RRT to prepare a written statement of its reasons and findings on material questions of fact. The third ground of appeal appears to rely on s 424A of the Migration Act. 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on political grounds by reason of his affiliation with the Bangladesh Awami League and the Chattra/Juba Leagues. 3 The appellant made a large number of factual claims. Without being exhaustive, these claims and the RRT's reasons for rejecting them, may be summarised as follows. First, the appellant claimed that his brother was seriously injured by political rivals at a public rally. The RRT seems to have accepted that the appellant's brother was injured but it did not accept that the claim gave rise to a fear of persecution on a Convention ground. 4 Second, the appellant claimed that he and his family were supporters of the Awami League, which was out of power in Bangladesh. He claimed that Awami League supporters were severely persecuted in Bangladesh. The RRT found that the applicant had a low political profile and that he had embellished his claims to improve his prospects on his application. It did not find him to be a credible witness. It also found on the basis of independent country information that there was no evidence that the current government of Bangladesh was targeting members of the Awami League. 5 Third, the appellant claimed that he had been convicted in Bangladesh in absentia on false political charges. The RRT found that the charges were genuine and that the appellant was wanted in Bangladesh for his part in a murder. The RRT was satisfied that this was a matter for the Bangladeshi police. It was also satisfied that the judiciary in Bangladesh is independent. 6 Fourth, the appellant claimed that he would be subject to revenge attacks if he failed to make donations to his political opponents. The RRT accepted that business people in Bangladesh are asked for political donations but it considered the factual basis for the appellant's claim and rejected it. 7 Fifth, the appellant claimed that he was injured in a political clash with BNP supporters in 1995. Again the RRT considered the facts and rejected the claim. 8 The appellant set out six grounds of review in his application before Federal Magistrate Emmett. Five of those grounds sought merits review and her Honour rejected them because it is well established that it is no function of a Chapter III court to conduct merits review on such an application. The sixth ground was a complaint made by the appellant against his migration agent. Her Honour found that this did not give rise to a ground of judicial review. 9 The appellant appeared in person this afternoon without legal representation. He was assisted by a Bengali interpreter. He did file some written submissions but did not add to his written submissions in oral address. 10 Because the appellant is self-represented I have carefully considered the decisions of the RRT and the Federal Magistrate to consider independently whether I can see any arguable case based on the material before me, see Chung v University of Sydney [2002] FCA 186. See also Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1999) 166 ALR 129, at [26]-[29]. 11 The grounds of appeal based upon breach of s 430 of the Migration Act must fail. A fair reading of the detailed decision of the RRT shows that there is no basis for any claim that s 430 has been breached. In any event, breach of s 430 of the Migration Act does not of itself give rise to jurisdictional error; see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323, at [35], [68]-[69]. 12 Nor is there any substance in the ground of appeal which is apparently based upon s 424A of the Migration Act. I can see no suggestion that the RRT failed to give the appellant particulars of any item of information which might fall within s 424A(1) of the Migration Act. The country information to which the RRT referred was not specifically about the appellant and fell within the exception contained in s 424A(3)(a); see for example, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v NAMW (2004) 140 FCR 672 at [138]. The appellant's written submission did no more than seek to reargue the RRT's factual findings. As I have already said, this cannot amount to jurisdictional error on the part of the RRT, nor does it disclose any error in the reasoning of the learned Federal Magistrate. 13 I am satisfied that the material which I have considered and which has been put before me in the appeal does not give rise to an arguable case that the RRT committed a jurisdictional error or that Federal Magistrate Emmett's decision discloses any appellable error. It follows that the orders I will make are that the appeal be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.