SBHF v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SBHF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 771

MIGRATION – Review by Indian national of Refugee Review Tribunal decision refusing to grant applicant a protection visa – Tribunal found that applicant at risk of persecution for Convention-related reasons in state of Andhra Pradesh – Tribunal found that re-location by applicant to New Delhi reasonable – whether that decision vitiated by jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958, ss.474 and 476
The Constitution, paragraph 75(v)

Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Plaintiff S157 v The Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437

Applicant: SBHF

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: ADG222 of 2006

Judgment of: Lindsay FM

Hearing date: 12 December 2006

Date of Last Submission: 12 December 2006

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 25 May 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Tredrea

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The Application filed on 9 August 2006 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

ADG222 of 2006

SBHF

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”). Pursuant to that section this Court has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration matters as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution. Pursuant to s.474 of the Act, the decision the subject of the review is to be regarded as a privative clause decision and therefore final and conclusive unless the decision can be shown to have been vitiated by jurisdictional error as that concept has been explained by the High Court in decisions such as Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 and specifically in relation to migration decisions such decisions as Plaintiff S157 v The Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24.

2. The review sought is of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) handed down on 27 July 2006.

3. That decision was itself a refusal to allow a review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the applicant a protection visa made on 25 January 2006.

4. The application to this Court alleges jurisdictional error only in the most general of terms.  However, the applicant has filed written submissions.  The applicant filed submissions on 29 November 2006, which include a document described as “Errors in the Decision made by the RRT”.  The applicant appeared on his own behalf before me at the hearing and made further submissions.

5. The applicant is a citizen of India born in Hyderabad in the state of Andhra Pradesh.  He was educated in that state.  He travelled to Australia to study a Masters of Engineering at the University of South Australia in 1999.  He met an American…