NAFW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs to refuse applications for protection visas by the present applicant and her husband. He is not a party in this application. 2 The claim for refugee status was based upon the applicant's activities as a journalist in Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had worked as a journalist in Bangladesh but the member was not satisfied she was at risk, if returned to Bangladesh, because of her political opinion. The member gave reasons for this conclusion. The reasons included discussion about the details of the claims made by the applicant and also about the country information. 3 When the matter came before me for directions on 11 February 2003, I pointed out to the applicant the limitations on the Court's jurisdiction; in particular, that the Court had no power to review the Tribunal's findings of fact. The applicant later had the benefit of advice from a lawyer on the panel maintained by the Court, with the assistance of the Bar Association and Law Society of New South Wales. I do not know the substance of the advice given to the applicant. But I assume the limitations on the Courts powers were again explained to her. 4 Perhaps because she understood the situation, the applicant filed a document by way of submission, that listed a number of grounds of review. This document may have been prepared on behalf of the applicant by somebody else. It stated, but did not elaborate, grounds of review. It did not advance any argument why any of them should be accepted. When I asked the applicant to do this orally, she effectually disclaimed the document. She said this was not what she wished to talk about. The applicant asserted that she was, in fact, a refugee. She complained that her evidence had not been believed by the Tribunal. At one point in the discussion, the applicant asserted that the Tribunal member was biased towards the Government. When I asked her to indicate why she made that assertion, she withdrew it, but she said the Tribunal member made his decision on the basis of his own perspective rather than the truth. I understand this to be a complaint that the member did not accept the applicant's version of relevant events. 5 I have read the Tribunal's reasons for decision. They do not indicate any basis for saying the Tribunal member was affected by bias. Certainly, he was unwilling to accept key elements of the applicant's evidence but it was the task of the Tribunal to examine the evidence and determine whether it should be accepted as factually correct and, if so, what was the effect of the evidence. Necessarily, in undertaking this task, the Tribunal member brought to bear his own perspective. The fact that particular evidence was rejected is not an indication, in itself, that the member was biased. 6 The important point about bias is that the person concerned must be ready to listen carefully to the case put by a party and evaluate it with an open mind. The person must be ready and willing to be persuaded, if the evidence is convincing and/or sound arguments are put. I see no reason to doubt that, in this case, the member approached his task in that way. 7 Once bias is put aside, it is apparent that the applicant's only complaint is that the Tribunal should have made different findings of fact. In other words, the complaint is that the Tribunal should have accepted the applicant's evidence, rather than rejected it. 8 However, this is not a submission that the Court can entertain. To do so would be for the Court to enter into the forbidden territory of reviewing the facts of the case. I express no view about the facts of the case. It is not for me to determine the facts. I simply say that no entertainable ground of review has been raised for my consideration. 9 It follows that the application must be dismissed. The order of the Court will be that the application be dismissed with costs.