NAJC v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAJC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2002] FMCA 256

MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no jurisdictional error – privative clause decision – application dismissed.

Applicant: NAJC

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ508 of 2002

Delivered on: 1 November 2002

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing Date: 16 October 2002

Judgment of: Barnes FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr JD Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. That the application is dismissed.

2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ508 of 2002

NAJC

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL
& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application

1. This is an application for relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) which was made on 2 May 2002 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2. The applicant applied to the Federal Court on 22 May 2002 and the matter was transferred to this court on 10 July 2002 by Stone J. 

3. The applicant claimed that the Tribunal:

   (1)did not consider him as a refugee despite many evidentiary proofs;

   (2)did not observe procedures required to be observed in connection with the making of the decision;

   (3)ignored the merits of the claim and did not take into account what he described as “the verdict” from the country report;

   (4)did not act in good faith;

   (5)misjudged the fate of his claim;

   (6)made a number of errors to decide the fate of the claim.

   (7)ignored relevant evidence such as to constitute actual bias and denial of procedural fairness;

   (8)failed to investigate his claims of persecution in India amounting to actual bias;

   (9)erred in such a way that the decision of the High Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966 is relevant.

The Tribunal decision

1. The applicant was accepted by the Tribunal to be a citizen of India.  He arrived in Australia on 17 June 2000 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 1 August 2000.  That application was refused on 10 August 2000 and the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.

2. The applicant claimed that he was from Jammu Kashmir in India and feared persecution by reason of his religion (Hindu) and his political opinion (as President of the Hindu Shiv Sena).  On 25 February 2002 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that it had looked at all material relating to his application but was not prepared to make a favourable decision on that information alone and inviting him to a hearing on 8 April 2002.  The letter advised that if he did not attend the hearing and a postponement had not been granted the Tribunal may make a decision on…