MZWRP v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 383

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWRP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 383

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: MZWRP

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL &INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: MLG 1283 of 2004

Delivered on: 2 March 2005

Delivered at: Melbourne

Hearing Date: 2 March 2005

Judgment of: Riethmuller FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T.B.M. Mosby

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The applicant’s application filed 7 October 2004 be dismissed.

2. The applicant do pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2,600.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 1283 of 2004

MZWRP

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. The applicant in this matter seeks to judicially review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the RRT’) of 20 August 2004.  The grounds of the application are as follows:

   1.The respondent has fallen into jurisdictional error in that:

   Particulars:

   (a) The Tribunal has failed to undertake its mandated task of determining whether the applicant was persecuted for political opinion.

   (b) The Tribunal has failed to understand the deeper significance of the applicants claim.  The Tribunal failed to discuss the relevant country information with the applicant and how that information likely to be the reason or the part of the reason for the refusal of the application.  Consequently, the tribunal has failed to undertake its mandated task of correctly interpreting sections 36, 65 and 424A of the Act.

   (c) The Tribunal erred in determining that there is no real chance that I would be harmed for reason of being a member of the UNP.

2. In its decision the RRT sets out the facts and circumstances of the case and a summary of the evidence that occurred and its discussions at the hearing with the applicant.  The applicant in this case is a 35‑year‑old male, a Sinhalese Buddhist.  The RRT accepted that he was associated with the UNP and was a member of the UNP. The RRT also accepted that he may have assisted his uncle during an election campaign in 2001 but did not regard his role as either public or prominent. 

3. The RRT concluded that the applicant's claims to be suffering revenge from PA persons towards him were either falsely made or lacking in credibility.  The RRT did not accept that the applicant had ever been suspected of harassing PA supporters, nor did it accept as a consequence that his wife received anonymous phone calls seeking his whereabouts. 

4. Indeed, the RRT came to the conclusion that the applicant's claims appeared to have been prepared by someone else and he had simply signed the statement as they appeared so inconsistent with the versions that he gave at the hearing.

5. In the circumstances it appears that it would be difficult for the applicant to succeed in judicial review as the findings of fact are clearly against him.  The grounds for the application provide no real insight into what the real cause of complaint is by the applicant with respect to the RRT. 

6. The applicant has not participated in the proceedings by complying with the directions which provided appropriate opportunities for him to identify his cause of complaint and the facts or law that he relied upon to establish his claim for remedies by way of judicial review. 

7. The applicant has been served with a copy of the application to dismiss his claim that is returnable today and has not appeared at court. 

1. In the circumstances I therefore dismiss the current application.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM

Associate: 

Date: