SZDKW v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 750

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDKW v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 750 SZDKW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2524 OF 2006

MARSHALL J

16 MAY 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2524 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDKW

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE OF ORDER: 16 MAY 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 appeal is dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the 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 2524 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZDKW

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 16 MAY 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('Tribunal'). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent Minister that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He claimed that he feared persecution if returned to Bangladesh in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of his political opinion as a member of the Awami League. 3 A delegate of the Minister rejected the appellant's application for a protection visa. The delegate found that political violence was widespread in Bangladesh and that merely belonging to an opposition political party does not attract persecution. The delegate also said that the appellant could relocate in Bangladesh. 4 The appellant sought merits review before the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, but the Tribunal's decision was quashed by consent following the judgment of the High Court in SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162. The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal which also affirmed the delegate's decision. The Court below dismissed an application for judicial review of that decision. 5 Below, I only consider so much of the material which was before the Tribunal as is necessary to deal with the points raised by the appellant before the Federal Magistrate and the additional point contained in the notice of appeal. 6 Before the Federal Magistrate, the appellant submitted there was no evidence to support the Tribunal's finding that two documents referred to as "First Information Reports" were not genuine. 7 The Federal Magistrate said in his Honour's reasons for judgment (see SZDKW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1922) at [25]: The Tribunal referred to the specific claims made by the [appellant] and considered documents which purported to be First Information Reports in relation to two false charges.