SZBFD v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against orders made by a Federal Magistrate dismissing an application for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa. 2 I heard this matter in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court sitting as a single Judge pursuant to a direction of the Chief Justice made under s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 3 The appellant is a national of Bangladesh. He claims political and religious persecution due to his active membership of the Awami League. He claims that since the elections held on 1 October 2001, members of the government party, the Bangladesh National Party ("BNP"), as well as their coalition partners have harassed him. He claims that from November 2001 he was unemployed and in hiding to avoid political harassment. His claims before the Tribunal included the claim that there were two false cases or false charges lodged against him in the Bangladesh courts by his opponents. 4 The Tribunal was unconvinced that the appellant's claims were true. By and large this was due to the appellant's perceived lack of knowledge of the Awami League, itself, and of the elections he said he was involved in. The Tribunal was unconvinced, it said, by the appellant's oral evidence and importantly by the lack of documentary evidence about the false charges and summonses that he claimed were laid against him in Bangladesh. The Tribunal noted the appellant's inability to provide any documentary evidence despite having had ample opportunity, it said, to obtain certified copies of the "warrants of arrest". 5 The appellant was questioned about the absence of supporting documentation. At pages 10 and 11 of the Tribunal's reasons, there is a record of questioning of the appellant at the second hearing. The following is recorded in the reasons for decision of the Tribunal: The Tribunal asked him if anything else had happened to him. He said that two false cases were registered against him. The two cases alleged that he and others from his party had attacked BNP and Jamaat-Islami meetings. He was asked when he had found out about these cases. He said he was shown the court documents by a friend in April 2002. The Tribunal noted that in his application form he had stated that he will provide documentary evidence in support of this claim. He said that his friend was supposed to send him copies of these false cases, but is in hiding. The Tribunal asked him why there had been no attempt to arrest him between April and June 2002. He said they were hunting for him but could not find him because he was in hiding. The Tribunal asked him how his friend had been able to obtain these documents. He said that he does not know. The Tribunal asked him about the nature of the documents he had viewed. He said that it was a case and the papers said that there was a warrant against him. 6 Later in its reasons the Tribunal dealt with this application of false charges at pages 18 and 19 in the following way: The applicant further claims that two false cases were registered against him by his political opponents. The applicant had indicated in his application for a protection visa that he has been trying to get certified copies of the false cases brought against him and that he will try to obtain copies of "the warrants of arrest". Despite the ample opportunity available to the applicant, he has been unable to provide any corroborative documentary evidence to support his claim that false cases have been registered against him in Bangladesh. Moreover, the applicant's evidence at the hearing regarding these false cases was unconvincing. When, for instance, he was asked when he had found out about these cases, he said he was shown the court documents by a friend, also named in the documents, in April 2002. When he was asked how his friend had been able to obtain these documents, he said that he did not know. More importantly, when he was asked about the nature of the documents he had viewed (for example, if they were warrants of arrest, charge sheets, summonses, etc) he stated that it was a case and the papers said that there was a warrant against him. The applicant is not illiterate. In fact, he is an educated and well-travelled businessman. The Tribunal considers it reasonable that if he had viewed the documents he would have at least been able to identify the nature of these documents. The Tribunal, based on the evidence before it, cannot be satisfied that false cases were registered against the applicant. [emphasis in original] 7 Not only did the Tribunal reject the evidence of the false charges, in its reasons under the heading "Findings and Reasons" from pages 16 through to 21, the Tribunal set out in some detail the aspects of the appellant's evidence which it found inadequate or unconvincing. 8 The Tribunal referred to the following matters, amongst other things: