FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAOQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCAFC 250

NAOQ V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 841 OF 2003

WHITLAM, MOORE & KIEFEL JJ

7 NOVEMBER 2003

SYDNEY

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                  The appeal be dismissed.

2.                  The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1                     This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing with costs an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) handed down on 3 April 2003:  NAOQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 647.

2                     The appellant is a national of Bangladesh, who was born on 15 January 1960 and arrived in Australia on 14 September 2000.  He lodged an application for a protection visa on 12 October 2000, claiming to fear persecution, were he to return to Bangladesh, on the ground of his religion.  The appellant said that he was an adherent of a ‘guru’ who did notaccept Mohammed as the last prophet of Islam and that he feared persecution by fundamentalist Muslims.  His visa application was refusedby a delegate of the respondent.  That decision was affirmed by the Tribunal.  It accepted that the appellant was a follower of the ‘guru’ but disbelieved his account of events that had befallen him in Bangladesh on account of his religious affiliation.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was any real chance that he would be persecuted should he return to Bangladesh.  A migration agent acted at all times for the appellant during the consideration of his visa application.

3                     The originating application filed in Court claimed that the decision of the Tribunal involved jurisdictional error.  The appellant appeared in person at first instance and identified no such error.  The primary judge said that the only matter he raised was the Tribunal’s failure to believe him.  Her Honour observed, correctly, that the assessment of a claimant’s credibility was a function committed to the Tribunal.  Accordingly the application was dismissed.

4                     The notice of appeal contains no proper grounds of appeal.  None has been articulated today.  The appellant filed submissions which mentioned Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966, but made no sense.  There is nothing in the appeal papers to indicate that the appellant was denied procedural fairness before the Tribunal.

5                     The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:              7 November 2003

The appellant appeared in person.