Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S303/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1811
APPLICANT S303/2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1261 of 2008
MIDDLETON J
13 NOVEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1261 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: APPLICANT S303/2003
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 NOVEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1261 of 2008
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: APPLICANT S303/2003
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE: MIDDLETON J
DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2008
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against a judgment of Federal Magistrate Nicholls of 24 July 2008 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') of 20 March 2007. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.
BACKGROUND 2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 17 October 1997. On 14 November 1997, the appellant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 28 March 1998. On 28 April 1998 the appellant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. 3 The Tribunal (as previously constituted) made its decision on 25 May 2000. This decision was quashed, by consent, by orders of the Federal Magistrates Court on 13 November 2006, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. 4 The appellant claimed to have a well founded fear of persecution if returned to Bangladesh, due to his Bihari ethnicity. He had allegedly grown up in a 'refugee camp' in Bangladesh, and stated that Biharis were treated as outsiders by the Bengali majority. The appellant claimed to be a member of the 'Bihari movement' and, as a result of his activities, was targeted by Bengalis and the Awami League thugs. He claimed that after a friend's family was attacked by 'Bengali terrorists', he and his friend were attacked, killing his friend Shakil in March 1997. The appellant was allegedly warned not to give evidence in a subsequent trial of the accused assailants, but did so and was, along with a colleague, attacked and beaten, despite the local police having offered protection. The appellant referred to other incidents which had allegedly taken place in 1997. He stated that if he returned to Bangladesh, he would suffer further attacks as his assailants were protected by 'influential people'.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate