NAKL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

The applicant's background and submissions 6 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh for reasons of his political opinion as a member of the Jatiya Party. The Refugee Review Tribunal ('the RRT') found that the applicant was not a truthful or credible witness for reasons which it gave. The RRT did not accept any of the applicant's claims, including his claim to be an active member of the Jatiya Party. In the RRT's assessment the applicant had concocted his claim to be a refugee. In any event, the RRT found on the basis of country information that members of the Jatiya Party are not generally at risk of serious harm in Bangladesh as a consequence of the peaceful expression of their political opinions. 7 It is against that background that the document styled 'Applicant's submission' needs to be assessed. Paragraphs 2 - 3 of that document assert that the circumstances of the present case are identical with the agreed facts in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 which is said to be determinative of the present application. That submission must fail as the applicant did not prove, or even set out to prove, before the Federal Magistrate facts analogous to those which were agreed in Muin: see NADR of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 293, VAS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 350, and the other cases referred to in par 15 and following of the respondent's written submissions. The applicant does not appear to have raised Muin's case before the Federal Magistrate at all. 8 Paragraphs 4 - 5 of the applicant's submission assert that the RRT did not believe the applicant. In these paragraphs, it is asserted that the RRT failed to investigate the applicant's claims through the Department of Foreign Affairs ('DFAT') or other independent sources. It is said that the RRT was heavily reliant on generalised DFAT reports and that the RRT did not consider supporting facts and documents. However, it was a matter for the RRT to decide whether it believed the applicant, and it was a matter for the RRT to determine the weight to be placed on country information and DFAT reports. The matters alleged in these paragraphs do not rise above sweeping unsupported assertions which, at least to some extent, are internally contradictory. An appeal to this Court is not a merits review of the RRT's decision. These paragraphs do not demonstrate any arguable ground of appeal. 9 Paragraphs 6 - 9 of the applicant's submission are generalised assertions as to the applicant's understanding of the nature of jurisdictional error. They are not grounds of appeal and nor do they expose any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the applicant's submission assert actual bias on the part of the RRT. However, the fact that the applicant was comprehensively disbelieved by the RRT is not a basis to an allegation of bias. The allegation of bias was not raised before the Federal Magistrate, or in the original application, or in the document which was lodged by the applicant with the Federal Magistrate setting out the three grounds of his complaint. The allegation of bias is unsupported by evidence and is unparticularised, except that an alleged failure to investigate the applicant's claims of persecution as a political activist is relied upon as indicating bias. Hence, there is no foundation for a conclusion that the RRT failed to investigate the applicant's claims. The RRT considered those claims but rejected them upon the grounds that they were a concoction. These paragraphs do not identify any arguable ground of appeal. 10 Paragraph 12 of the applicant's submission asserts that the RRT's failure to investigate 'what socio-economic changes might occur in Bangladesh in the reasonably foreseeable future' implied that 'the RRT did not complete the exercise of its jurisdiction'. The complaint in this paragraph is misconceived. As the RRT found that the applicant had concocted his claims to be a political activist, it was not obliged to make any such findings. This paragraph does not identify any arguable ground of appeal. 11 Paragraph 13 of the applicant's submission asserts that the RRT 'did not provide the applicant with particulars of information which formed part of the reason of the RRT's decision, namely that the persecution against political activists in Bangladesh had subsided'. This complaint is without substance, as the RRT did not base its decision on a finding that persecution against political activists in Bangladesh had subsided. The RRT simply did not accept that the applicant was a political activist. In any event, s 424A(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') would apply to the generalised country information which appears to be the subject matter of the par 13 complaint. This paragraph does not identify any arguable ground of appeal.