MZWGL v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWGL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 487

MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – protection visa – whether jurisdictional error/bad faith.

VAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 255
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407
R v Murray; Ex parte Proctor (1949) 77 CLR 387

Applicant: MZWGL

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: MLG 498 of 2004

Judgment of: McInnis FM

Hearing date: 17 March 2005

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 17 March 2005

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Hay

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6300.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 498 of 2004

MZWGL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL
& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. In an application filed on 11 May 2004, the applicant seeks review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the RRT) dated 22 March 2004 which was handed down on 16 April 2004.  In its decision, the RRT had affirmed a delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant had lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs on 4 January 2002.  It is significant to note that in support of that application, the applicant had relied upon a statement of the same date.  In addition to that statement, it is clear from the court book and from the RRT decision itself, that the applicant had relied upon a letter from him dated 1 July 2002.  An audio-cassette recording was relied upon of the delegate's interview with the applicant conducted on 27 September 2002, and the delegate's decision record.  Further written submissions by the applicant dated 7 November 2002 were provided, together with other material, including reports primarily concerning violence perpetrated against Muslims in India. 

2. The applicant has confirmed today that before the RRT hearing on 13 January 2004, he was unrepresented, though gave evidence.  Likewise today he is unrepresented and seeks to rely upon a document setting out what might be described as his contentions and which otherwise stands as an amended application.  The document filed 25 August 2004 entitled ‘An Amended Application and Contentions of Fact and Law’ is conceded by the respondent to be an amended application, together with contentions of fact and law effectively in compliance with orders made in this matter.

3. The applicant is an Indian citizen who arrived in Australia on

   
   

   7 December 2001 using a false passport.  I should add that that issue was the subject of part of the findings of the RRT.  In fact the RRT did not accept that the applicant had obtained a false Indian passport to avoid detection by Indian authorities when…