FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Haque v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1582

MIGRATION – no question of principle

EMAMUL HAQUE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 763 OF 1999

HELY J

4 NOVEMBER 1999

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         Application dismissed with costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This is an application for a review of a decision given by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) on 9 July 1999.  That decision affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  The applicant claimed the status of a refugee upon the grounds that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his political opinion if he returned to Bangladesh.

2                     As is well known, review by this Court of a decision of the RRT is only available if one of the grounds referred to in s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 is made out.  The RRT accepted that the applicant was involved with the student wing of the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”) when he was at college and that he was then involved in violent clashes with members of student wings of other political parties.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant may have been injured during the course of those clashes. 

3                     The applicant completed his college education when he graduated with an Arts degree in about 1993.  The Tribunal did not accept that thereafter the applicant had any involvement with the BNP or its activities.  The Tribunal rejected the applicant's evidence that he had been physically attacked twice in 1995 because of his involvement with the BNP.  The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant had fabricated his claims in that respect in order to create for himself the profile of a refugee.

4                     The Tribunal summarised its conclusions in this respect at page 20 of its reasons for decision as follows:

“I accept that Mr Haque was involved with the BNP student wing when he was at college.  However, I do not accept that he has ever been a member of either the main BNP organisation or of the BNP's youth wing.  Further, I do not accept that Mr Haque has been involved in political activities since he completed his studies in 1993.  In particular, I do not accept that Mr Haque was attacked in late 1995 or that he was involved in the election campaign in 1996.  Further, I do not accept that there are outstanding charges against Mr Haque in Bangladesh.  In the circumstances, I do not accept that the Bangladeshi authorities had any interest in Mr Haque at the time he left Bangladesh or currently.  I further do not accept that Mr Haque was of any interest to Awami League activists or activists of any political party at the time he left the country or currently.”

5                     It was a matter for the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims and to decide whether or not to accept them.  If the Tribunal was not satisfied as to the genuineness of those claims it was entitled to reject them, as it did.  The Tribunal gave reasons for rejecting the claims and for coming to the conclusion which it reached.  The reasons which the Tribunal gave are capable of sustaining the conclusion to which it came.  No error in the Tribunal's reasoning process, let alone an error of the type referred to in s 476 of the Act, has been shown.

6                     Even though the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of BNP involvement after the conclusion of his college career, and even though the Tribunal was of the view that the chance that the applicant would become involved in political activities in support of the BNP if he returned to Bangladesh is remote, the Tribunal went on to consider whether in its view there is a real chance of persecution if the applicant were to be involved in activities supporting the BNP.  The Tribunal had before it a considerable amount of information from sources other than the applicant in relation to the political conditions in Bangladesh. 

7                     The Tribunal accepted that violence pervades the political culture in Bangladesh, however, in Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 73 I had to consider a case which had some similarities to the present.  In that case the Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that if Mr Rahman returned to political activities on returning to Bangladesh, he could be harmed by members of other political parties.  But the Tribunal hearing that case found that if that occurred it would be in the context of acts of violence committed by members of all Bangladesh political parties and not as a result of persecution.  In that case I found that the Tribunal was entitled to come to the conclusion which it did.  In paragraph 10 of my decision I said:

“The fact that all political parties are from time to time involved in armed clashes with the police and with each other, as part of the political milieu of Bangladesh, does not mean that there is persecution within the meaning of the Convention, because the violence lacks the selective or discriminatory quality which is inherent in the notion of persecution, and because it lacks the requisite “official” quality in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated, or uncontrollable by the authorities of Bangladesh.”

8                     At page 21 of its decision in the present case the Tribunal made the following statement:

“I accept that if Mr Haque returned to Bangladesh and actively supported the BNP cause it is possible that he could be harmed in the course of participating in violent clashes with other political groups or with the police.  However, I do not accept that this would amount to persecution for a Convention reason.  Further, given that the BNP is a legal political party that contests elections and is represented in parliament, I am of the view that Mr Haque could actively support the BNP without becoming involved in violence.  There is no evidence to suggest that all BNP members and supporters inevitably become involved in violent clashes.”

9                     As I have said, it is for the Tribunal to find the facts, and in my opinion, no error is shown in this finding, let alone an error which would enliven the operation of s 476 of the Act.

10                    The applicant lodged a 7 page submission with the Court on 22 October 1999.  I have given careful consideration to the matters referred to in that submission.  The document is with the Court papers, hence there is no need to summarise its contents.  It is sufficient for present purposes to say that whilst the submission asserts that the Tribunal made errors of the kind referred to in s 476, none are identified, let alone made out.  The essential thrust of the submission is that the Tribunal should have come to a different conclusion on the facts.  Even if that complaint were made out, and I am by no means satisfied that it has been made out, that would not be sufficient to attract the operation of s 476.

11                  It follows that the application for an order for review of the decision of the Tribunal fails and Mr Haque's application must be dismissed.  The order which I propose to make is that the application is dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:              15 November 1999