NBDA v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 540
•23 August 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| NBDA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 540 |
| MIGRATION – General directions – purported compliance – where no reasonable grounds for review are articulated. |
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001
| Applicant: | NBDA |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SZ 1476 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 23 August 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 23 August 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $1,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 1476 of 2004
| NBDA |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the applicant has filed what purports to be an amended application in accordance with the orders of the Registrar although somewhat out of time. The grounds upon which the applicant seeks review appear to be:
“The decision made by the RRT is unfair to me because I am sure that I would be persecuted by the Chinese Government once I return to China. The decision of the RRT made should be based on a fair basis. They should take all the circumstances into consideration and give me a favourable decision.”
The applicant claimed to have a well founded fear of persecution for the convention reasons of religious belief and/or membership of a social group, claiming to have been a practitioner of Falun Gong. Unfortunately the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was unable to obtain from the information provided to him sufficient to satisfy it that he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. As the Tribunal states at [CB 58] the applicant had worked in China until his departure for Australia although in an earlier document he claimed that he had been forbidden to work following his detention in or after 1999. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had made a tourist visit to Thailand in December 2001.
The Tribunal stated:
“Against that background, and in the absence of any further detail from the applicant, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant was suffering from discrimination or harassment at a level amounting to Convention persecution at any time in this period. ... the applicant has provided no information beyond a very brief and general reference to the health benefits of Falun Gong to support his claim to be a Falun Gong adherent, and no information on any Falun Gong activity since his arrival in Australia (which might add to his reasons for holding a well founded fear of Convention persecution on return).”
The attempt by the applicant to find jurisdictional error in those statements or in the conduct of the Tribunal is not articulated in his amended application. It is not appropriate now that he should have a further opportunity of doing this despite the arguments of his pro bono solicitor for whose assistance the court is most grateful.
This application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1200.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0