NAMO v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAMO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 471

MIGRATION – Review of decision of RRT – where applicant’s complaints are not supported by evidence that the conduct he complains of took place.

Federal Court Rules 1979 , O 54B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.422B
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, P 21 r 21.02(2)(a)

NARE v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 554

Applicant: NAMO

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 1010 of 2003

Delivered on: 20 July 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 20 July 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant: Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Tim Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,000 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 1010 of 2003

NAMO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  He arrived in Australia on 22 March 2002.  On 10 April 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  On 28 April 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 5 July 2002 the applicant applied for a review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal arranged a hearing and the applicant gave oral evidence to it on 24 January 2003.  On 3 March 2003 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision not to grant a protection visa and it handed down that decision on 25 March 2003.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant sought review of that decision in this court. 

2. The substantive ground of the applicant's complaint against the conduct of the Tribunal was that he had made a request for a date to submit explanation and material in support of his claim in reply to adverse material relied upon by the Tribunal.  He stated that the Tribunal refused to grant a date as requested and then made its decision.  There are other matters referred to in the application but it appears to me that they are either complaints that the Tribunal did not find in favour of the applicant, a repetition of the complaint about the materials or an unparticularised claim that the Tribunal was not bona fide.  This last claim requires to be particularised pursuant to Order 54B of the Federal Court Rules and has not been so particularised. 

3. The grounds upon which the applicant seeks the protection of Australia are that he is a person to whom this country owes protection obligations pursuant to the Refugees Convention and the Refugees Protocol because he has a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of political opinion in his home country of India.  This fear arises out of the applicant's association with a fire…