FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBGO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1743

NBGO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND ANOR

NSD 1483 OF 2006

RARES  J

16 NOVEMBER 2006

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                  The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

1                     This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court, NBGO v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1100.  Her Honour dismissed the appellant’s application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 29 April 2004 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant her a protection visa.  Her Honour carefully considered the appellant’s arguments and grounds of appeal and reviewed in detail in her judgment the decision of the Tribunal.  Her Honour also took note of the fact that the appellant and her brother who spoke for her in part had reiterated her claims that she feared for her safety were she and her son returned to India and to the Punjab. 

2                     In her oral submissions today the appellant has reiterated her fears and her claims that she has a well-founded fear of persecution if she is returned to India.  Her Honour concluded that there was no jurisdictional error disclosed in the reasons of the Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the application for review with costs. 

3                     A notice of appeal to this court was filed but discloses no intelligible ground of review of her Honour’s decision.  I am not able to interfere with her Honour’s decision unless I am satisfied that there was an error on her part in reaching the decision to dismiss the application in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The appellant has said that she has found it very difficult to find legal errors, no doubt because she is not a lawyer and these matters are quite perplexing to persons in her position.  I have carefully considered all the appellant has put to me today and I have read the decisions of the Tribunal and of the trial judge in detail in order to review them so that I could ascertain for myself whether there was any arguable ground on which the appeal could be upheld. 

4                     The Tribunal member found that, having regard to the independent evidence available to him, he did not accept that there was a real chance that the appellant would be harassed by the police or otherwise persecuted because of her husband’s association with the Sikh Student Federation or because some people came to their home for food and shelter.  The Tribunal also did not accept that there was a real chance that the appellant would be persecuted for reasons of any political opinion imputed to her or her membership of the particular social group constituted by her family if she returned to India now or in the foreseeable future.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a convention reason if she returned to India.  Those findings were arrived at by the Tribunal based on its exercise of its statutory function to review the decision of the delegate of the Minister.  I am unable to detect any jurisdictional error which the Tribunal made in arriving in that decision.

5                     I agree with her Honour, the trial judge, that there is no basis upon which, having reviewed the Tribunal’s decision and her Honour’s carefully reasoned judgment, the appeal could be allowed.  For these reasons the appeal is dismissed with costs.  I note that counsel for the Minister has said that he will not render fees for the preparation of written submissions in this matter.

Associate:

Dated:         14 December 2006