Applicant S202/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 272

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S202/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 272 APPLICANT S202/2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2512 OF 2006

MARSHALL J

5 MARCH 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2512 OF 2006

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S202/2003

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE OF ORDER: 5 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the first respondent is amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. The name of the second respondent is amended to 'Refugee Review Tribunal'. 3. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 4. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal. 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 2512 OF 2006

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S202/2003

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 5 MARCH 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Branson J published on 4 December 2006. The application before her Honour sought an order nisi requiring the Refugee Review Tribunal and the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to show cause why relief by way of constitutional writs and injunctions should not be granted following a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 7 March 1997. On 15 April 1997, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with what is now known as the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. On 25 September 1997, a delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa. On 27 October 1997, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. On 23 June 1999, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that it was unable to make a decision on the information before it and inviting the applicant to a hearing due to be held on 18 August 1999. On the day of the hearing, the applicant asked for an adjournment because he was suffering influenza. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing unless it became evident the applicant was significantly disadvantaged by his illness. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been questioned gently and compensation was made for his illness when he was answering questions. 3 Before the Tribunal, the applicant claimed to fear persecution because of his Ahmadi faith. He said that he has been beaten for his beliefs by Sunni Muslims. The applicant claimed he had been disinherited by his family for his conversion to Ahmadi. The applicant claimed police had raided his home during an Ahmadi meeting because his neighbours had told the police the meeting's participants were engaging in adultery. He claimed the police left when they found the accusation had no basis. The applicant claimed Sunni Muslims threw a grenade at his house during an Ahmadi meeting. The applicant asserted that while he was away on business he contacted his family who informed him that police had raided his house to search for him and had a warrant for his arrest on a false charge of smuggling. The applicant claims he was too frightened to return so he left the country, and travelled to Australia, via India.