SZGDJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 722

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGDJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 722

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 91R(3) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA SZHFE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2006]FCA 648 considered Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 cited VUAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 158 cited SZIMY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 249 cited SZHTC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1199 cited SZGDJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

NSD 361 OF 2008

WEINBERG J

20 MAY 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 361 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZGDJ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: WEINBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 MAY 2008

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. 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 361 OF 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZGDJ

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: WEINBERG J

DATE: 20 MAY 2008

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Scarlett FM who, on 28 November 2007, dismissed an application for review of an earlier decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 24 September 2004. On 5 October 2004 he applied to what was then the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs for a Protection (Class XA) Visa. A delegate of the Minister refused that application on 27 October 2004. 3 The appellant then sought review of that decision. The RRT affirmed the decision on 11 March 2005. On 16 October 2006 a Federal Magistrate ordered by consent that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the RRT's decision. His Honour remitted the matter to be reheard and determined according to law. 4 On 31 October 2006, the RRT wrote to the appellant advising him that the Federal Magistrates Court had remitted his case to the RRT. On 2 November 2006 the RRT wrote to the appellant inviting him to attend a hearing on 12 January 2007. The appellant attended a hearing on that day. He had the assistance of an interpreter and was accompanied by his solicitor. 5 On 6 February 2007 the RRT delivered its reasons for decision. It found that the appellant was, indeed, a national of Bangladesh. It noted his claim to fear persecution based on political opinion and his assertion that he was a long-standing activist, leader and office holder with the Awami League. The RRT rejected that assertion. It did so because the appellant was unable to provide details of his supposed activities as an assistant cultural secretary of the Awami League's Dhaka City Committee. Moreover, although he claimed to be aware of an Australian-based support group for the Awami League, he conceded that he had not attended any of its meetings and had not been involved in any of its activities. He did not know the name of the head of that support group. He was unaware of a recent significant development in Bangladesh, namely that the President had stepped down. 6 The RRT considered the appellant's claims to have been targeted by threats and to have suffered police harassment and false charges. It accepted that Bangladeshis face politically motivated violence and killings. However, it regarded his claim to have been falsely charged with various offences as implausible. It considered several documents that he submitted in support of these claims but found that the level of corruption in Bangladesh was so high that it could not treat these documents as genuine, at least without careful scrutiny. 7 The RRT regarded one letter in particular as bogus. That was a letter dated 8 January 2005 purporting to have been written by the General Secretary of the Awami League. It rejected the appellant's claim to have been present when a bomb exploded in August 2004. It also rejected his claim to have been abducted by terrorists in 2004 in an attempt to stop him from political activity. 8 The RRT noted the appellant's claim that his mother and his wife and children continued to live at his home address where he had been supposedly threatened. The appellant claimed that they continued to receive threats over the telephone directed at him. The Tribunal rejected that claim. It was not satisfied that he had been subjected to any threats or harm by reason of imputed political opinion. 9 Before the Federal Magistrate, the appellant, who was legally represented, sought review on essentially five grounds. These were identified in his Honour's reasons for judgment at [21] as follows: "i) Ground 1 – relating to s 424A. ii) Ground 2 – a claim that the Tribunal had failed to investigate the veracity of certain documents. iii) Ground 3 – relating to a statement that the Tribunal would attempt to contact a witness in Bangladesh. iv) Ground 4 – relating [sic] the Tribunal dismissing the genuine necessary [sic] of the documents. v) Ground 5 - relating [sic] the current (and changed) political situation in Bangladesh." 10 The Federal Magistrate observed at [22] that, in effect, each of these grounds had been abandoned. His Honour noted that counsel for the then applicant conceded that ground three would require evidence that was not available. The premise underlying ground 1 was not correct and s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) did not apply. Grounds 2 and 4 did not sufficiently raise an issue of jurisdictional error to be arguable and counsel had proceeded on that basis. His Honour did not address ground 5 but said that there appeared to be a real issue of a possible contravention of s 91R(3). Self-evidently, that issue was not raised in the original grounds of review. 11 The Federal Magistrate then dealt at length with the s 91R(3) point. He did so pursuant to a further amended application for review that was filed on 4 October 2007 and presumably stood in place of the original application for review. His Honour held that the matter was conclusively determined against the then applicant by the decision of Jacobson J in SZHFE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2006]FCA 648. In that case, Jacobson J held that s 91R(3) did not apply so as to require conduct engaged in by an applicant in Australia to be disregarded by the Minister unless the applicant relied upon such conduct to support a claim for protection. Counsel for the then applicant submitted that the decision in SZHFE was not correct and should not be followed. He put that submission somewhat boldly having regard to the fact that SZHFE had been the subject of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court and that application had been refused.