DZAAG v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DZAAG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2011] FMCA 866

MIGRATION – Review of decision of IMR – where applicant submitted the IMR should have provided him with copies of the country information relied upon – where applicant submitted he had not been given an opportunity to comment on any additional matters.

Plaintiff M61 of 2010E v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 85 ALJR 133 Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41
SZPAC v Minister for Immigration& Anor [2011] FMCA 517
Minister for Immigration & Anor;  ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
VHAP of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2004] FCAFC 82
Darabi v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 371

Applicant: DZAAG

First Respondent:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
Second Respondent	CHRIS PACKER IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER

File Number: DNG 12 of 2011

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 24 October 2011

Date of Last Submission: 24 October 2011

Delivered at: Darwin

Delivered on: 24 October 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Lee

Solicitors for the Applicant: Robert Welfare Barristers and Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Anderson

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $6,240.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

DNG 12 of 2011

DZAAG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

CHRIS PACKER IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Afghanistan, a Shia Muslim of Hazara ethnicity.  He arrived at Christmas Island on 5 January 2010 by boat and submitted claims in support of a request for refugee status assessment on 27 February 2010.  His claims were considered by an assessor who in April 2010 determined that he was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.  He sought review of that decision from an independent merits reviewer and was assisted in relation to his application by a firm of solicitors and migration agents who made a detailed submission on his behalf.  On 10 September 2010 an independent merits reviewer recommended to the Minister that the applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee as set out in Article 1A of the Refugees Convention 1951 as amended by the Refugees Protocol 1967 and should not be recognised as a refugee.

2. Following that decision the High Court of Australia determined that persons such as the applicant were entitled to judicial review of decisions of IMRs; Plaintiff M61 of 2010E v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 85 ALJR 133; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41. It was determined that this particular applicant should have a further review by an IMR of his application and the same lawyers wrote a further submission. The applicant’s claims were considered by the second respondent who, on 22 March 2011, came to the same conclusion as…