SZGCO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 637

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGCO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 637 SZGCO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 147 OF 2007

EDMONDS J

4 MAY 2007

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 147 of 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZGCO

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE OF ORDER: 4 MAY 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first 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 147 of 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZGCO

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 4 MAY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) dismissing an application for review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') refusing an application for a protection visa.

Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. The appellant arrived in Australia on 29 June 2004 and on 15 July 2004 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa on the ground of political opinion, having been suspected of involvement with persons who assassinated President Ziaur Rahman ('President Zia'). After the Minister's delegate refused the appellant's protection visa application, he applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. 3 The Tribunal found that the appellant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh for reasons of political opinion and that having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore, the appellant did not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') for a protection visa. 4 The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the application as it was unable to discern any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.