NAOK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") given on 25 March 2003. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. 2 The application to the Court says that it is lodged under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Matters that might conceivably go to jurisdictional error asserted in the application are as follows: 'I was deprived to fully present my case to the Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case were ignored by the Refugee Review Tribunal member.' 3 The accompanying affidavit complains only of alleged factual errors by the Tribunal. The applicant has filed written arguments evidently prepared by somebody, I doubt himself, who knows enough to demonstrate the wisdom of the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. They are quite unhelpful. Among other things, however, the submissions say: 'Unfortunately the RRT member [overlooked] the relevant documents and the documents which I [produced] for support of my application he did not [attach].' 4 This might suggest some jurisdictional failure. I asked the applicant, through an interpreter, if he could indicate one relevant document that might have been overlooked or not "attached" by the Tribunal Member. The applicant contented himself with saying that he did not wish to add to his written submissions. I am satisfied that the complaint was not a genuine one and ought not further to engage the Court's time and effort to tease out of him any more about it. 5 The applicant claimed, as do an astonishingly large number of Bangladeshi applicants for refugee status, that he was a student politician and that he was harassed and persecuted by activists of the opposing political group. In this instance, he says that he was attached to the student wing of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ("the BNP") and he had been threatened, efforts had been made on his life and false charges had been made against him. A less usual complaint was added; this was that he was a supporter of the feminist author Taslima Nasreen and, because of this, was at risk of persecution by Islamist terrorists. 6 The applicant was accompanied by a migration agent at the hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal Member rejected the applicant's claims for reasons that he gave. Those reasons are not manifestly attended by any erroneous legal approach such as to indicate or point to jurisdictional error, nor was the Tribunal Member's reasoning of the kind that could be labelled irrational or so illogical as to indicate a failure to perform the review function at all. See: Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30, a very recent case in the High Court. 7 The Tribunal member accepted that the applicant was a student activist but did not accept that he would now be targeted with impunity by Awami League opponents or be unable to have properly resolved in the courts any false charges laid by or at the instigation of his opponents. Among other things, the applicant's own party had an overwhelming election victory in October 2001, a year after the applicant arrived in Australia. The Tribunal Member assumed or may even have accepted that the applicant faced charges in relation to claimed activities with the BNP but considered that there was nothing to indicate that such charges arose for any Convention reason or, in the circumstances, amounted to anything in the order of persecution. If anything, they were simply laid in the course of attempted vindication of the criminal law. 8 The Tribunal Member likewise did not accept that the applicant had any justified fear on account of his support for Ms Nasreen. The Tribunal rejected his claim that he was involved in any organised support group for her, let alone that he was the leader of such a group. 9 Finally, the Tribunal Member considered "that the Applicant (an educated man with relevant language skills) could avoid any local difficulties … by living in one of the other large and densely populated cities of Bangladesh". 10 The applicant's submissions do not adequately point to any jurisdictional error, nor from reading the material do I discern any. It follows that his application should be dismissed. 11 The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.