SZDKK v 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 of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") in which a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa was affirmed. 2 The matter was heard by me in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court sitting as a single Judge pursuant to a direction of the Chief Justice under s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 3 The appellant claimed to fear persecution by reason of his political opinion in Bangladesh. He claimed to be a member of the Awami League and to fear harm from members of the rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). He claimed that persons associated with the BNP had ransacked his house in October 2001, filed false charges against him in 2003 and visited his house on many occasions in an attempt to kill him. The claims and evidence were set by the Tribunal on pages 4 to 10 of its reasons. 4 The appellant's claims were rejected by reason of the wholesale rejection of his evidence. Whilst the Tribunal accepted that there had been an incident at his house in October 2001 it found that this incident was unconnected with the appellant or his political beliefs. In its rejection of the appellant as a credible witness the Tribunal also rejected the authenticity of documentation put forward by the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not genuinely fear harm in Bangladesh and also noted his delay in leaving Bangladesh despite claiming to fear for his own life, and further delay in applying for a protection visa in Australia. 5 In the Tribunal's disbelief of the appellant in relation to most of his evidence it made the following findings: (a) that the appellant was evasive and that there were marked inconsistencies between the oral and written evidence and that he exaggerated the nature of an extent of his involvement in the Awami League; (b) that he was not actively involved in the Chattra League; (c) his documentation purporting to be from the Awami League was not genuine; (d) that given the inconsistency between his claim in writing that he was in hiding or on the run from his political opponents for a number of months in 2003 and his oral evidence that he was on the run from 1991 to 1996 and again from October 2001 to May 2003 when he left for Australia the Tribunal was not satisfied that he was in hiding or on the run at any time before he left Bangladesh; (e) false cases were not filed against him; (f) his house had not been visited by opponents 50 times and the authorities were not interested in him; (g) the incident at his father's house in October 2001 was not connected with the appellant or his political opinion; (h) the appellant was not involved in the Awami League or the 2001 elections in such a way as to attract the attention of political opponents. 6 In the Federal Magistrates Court the appellant filed an application and amended application. The application had three grounds none of which on their face revealed any ground of judicial review. They were set out in [4] of the Federal Magistrates reasons: