MZYJG v Minister for Immigration
[2010] FMCA 961
•30 November 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZYJG & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2010] FMCA 961 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision – claim for protection unrelated to the Refugee Convention – application for review dismissed. |
| Applicants: | MZYJG AND MZYJH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 1051 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | O'Dwyer FM |
| Hearing date: | 30 November 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 30 November 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 30 November 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitor for the Respondents: | Mr Wee DLA Phillips Fox |
ORDERS
The application for a review filed on 26 July 2010 is dismissed.
The Applicants pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5865.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1051 of 2010
| MZYJG & MZYJH |
Applicants
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Ex tempore)
This matter comes before me on an application filed on 26 July 2010 by two Applicants. The primary Applicant (the Applicant) being the husband of the other. The application seeks to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 23 June 2010. That decision affirmed an earlier decision of the First Respondent’s delegate to refuse to grant the Applicants Protection Class XA visas.
The Applicant, I am satisfied, is a citizen of Indonesia. The claim for protection arises out of the circumstances of the Applicant whose claim formed the basis of the Applicants’ entitlement for protection in Australia from persecution in Indonesia.
In summary, the claim states that the Applicant fears harm arising out of a dispute with a former business partner in Indonesia with whom he was involved in the installation of computers and wiring of a hospital in Denpasar. As a result of that dispute, the Applicant has concerns about his own and his family’s welfare.
Today, at this court, I invited the Applicant, after having confirmed the basis of his claim, to also provide me with any other basis he might have for a fear of serious harm being caused to him or his family in Indonesia. He was unable to do so, save to the extent that he expressed an anxiety about returning to Indonesia because of the shame he feels arising out of his incapacity to comply with religious obligations to either give materially, or through his labours, to those less fortunate than himself. His inability to do that was because of his precarious financial position arising out of the commercial dispute with his former partner.
When questioned as to whether that was his main concern (namely shame) or whether there was anything else associated with his failure to comply with a religious obligation, he confirmed it was shame.
He also confirmed that any fear of physical harm was attributable to his dispute with his former partner.
The procedural history to this matter is that it was listed for a hearing on 6 May 2010 at which the Applicant did not attend. However, by a letter on 14 May 2010 he advised that he was unable to attend because he was working in Adelaide that day. He advised the Tribunal of a new address; namely, Unit 8, 309 Castlereagh Street, Sydney. I am satisfied that the last known address was that address, when the Tribunal again invited him to attend a further hearing on 23 June 2010; but he did not do so.
The Tribunal then made a decision, giving its reasons, to affirm the First Respondent’s delegate’s decision to refuse the visas. In short, those reasons simply stated that the claim, as articulated by the Applicant in his application, did not disclose a claim based upon one of the necessary grounds set out in the Refugee Convention and Protocol.
There appears to be, in my view, no jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal. The Applicant has been unable to provide me today, even though I provided him with the opportunity to do so, any ground that might relate to a ground specified under the Refugee Convention and accordingly I intend to dismiss the application.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of O'Dwyer FM
Date: 30 November 2010
0
0
0