NAMP v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAMP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2002] FMCA 363

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision affirming a delegate’s refusal of a protection visa – whether the RRT made errors of fact or law – Chinese one child policy – whether the applicant is a member of a particular social group – no reviewable error found.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.65, 474

Applicant A v Minister for Immigration (1997) 190 CLR 225
Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration [2000] HCA 19; 201 CLR 293
NAAV v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 228
NAIN v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 177
Zahid v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 1108

Applicant: NAMP

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ596 of 2002

Delivered on: 16 October 2002

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing Date: 16 October 2002

Judgment of: Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G Kennett

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed at $4,000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ596 of 2002

NAMP

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. I have before me for ex tempore judgment an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) made on 14 May 2002 and handed down on 5 June 2002.  At the time the application was filed, the applicant was represented by solicitors.  The solicitors, however, filed a notice of withdrawal on 2 August 2002.  The applicant has, in consequence, been forced to represent himself today.

2. The applicant filed an affidavit in support of his original application in which he asserted that the RRT’s decision involves errors of law.  In particular, the incorrect application of the principles derived from the case of Applicant A v Minister for Immigration (1997) 190 CLR 225. The applicant also asserts that he has a well founded fear of persecution in the sense of the Refugees Convention because of the discriminatory way he was and will be punished and persecuted.

3. In his written submissions, which were filed on 25 September 2002, the applicant asserts that the RRT put the wrong weight on certain facts.  He also asserts that the RRT made wrong factual conclusions and further asserts that the RRT was wrong in concluding that he had not suffered adverse consequences because of the one child policy.  The applicant expanded on these submissions in oral submissions before me today.

4. The Minister has, through his lawyers, filed written submissions on 8 October 2002.  I accept that the factual background provided in those submissions in paragraphs 4 through to 8 is accurate.  I adopt that background statement for the purposes of this judgment.  I also accept that the legal submissions made by Mr Kennett on behalf of the Minister are sound.  I am bound…