RAM v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2013] FCCA 1979

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for order for review in relation to decision of Migration Review Tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction to determine application because it was filed without the time prescribed by the Migration Act – (s.347(1)(b)(i) – applicant fails to attend hearing on date fixed by Registry – application dismissed pursuant to power in Rules of Court (13.03C(1)(c).

Legislation:

Rules of Court 2012 r.1303C(1)

Applicant:

DALBARA RAM

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

ADG 93 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Lindsay

Hearing date:

14 October 2013

Date of Last Submission:

14 October 2013

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

14 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

No appearance

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Not applicable

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Alderton

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Sparke Helmore

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

No appearance

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Not applicable

ORDERS

The name of the first respondent be altered so as to read “The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”;
The application filed on 15 April 2013 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Rules of Court.
The applicant do pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings fixed in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($5400.00).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

ADG 93 of 2013

DALBARA RAM

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

And

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant having been called and not being in attendance and noting his failure to comply with the orders of the Registrar in relation to the filing of material prior to today’s hearing, I will make an order bringing these proceedings to an end.
The orders of the Court are:
a)The name of the first respondent be altered so as to read “The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”;
b)The application filed on 15 April 2013 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Rules of Court.
c)The applicant do pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings fixed in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($5400.00).
I order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Lindsay

Associate:

Date: 26 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

RAM (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia by boat, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their membership of a particular social group. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant then brought proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims regarding membership of a particular social group and the risk of persecution. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider whether the Tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal tests in determining whether the applicant's asserted group met the criteria for a "particular social group" under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Refugee Convention.

Judge Lindsay found that the Tribunal had failed to properly engage with the evidence presented by the applicant concerning their membership of the asserted social group. The Court held that the Tribunal's reasoning was insufficient and did not demonstrate a proper understanding of the legal test for identifying a particular social group, particularly in relation to the nexus between membership of the group and the feared persecution. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established