SZAGZ v Minister for Immigration
[2003] FMCA 497
•27 October 2003
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZAGZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2003] FMCA 497 |
| MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where original application for judicial review required amendment where there was no legal error capable of review. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.91R
| Applicant: | SZAGZ |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SZ 376 of 2003 |
| Delivered on: | 27 October 2003 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 27 October 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | Applicant in person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr J Smith |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay respondent’s costs in the sum of $4,250.00 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 376 of 2003
| SZAGZ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia, he arrived in Australia on 15 July 2002. On 7 August 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) Visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”). On 19 September 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 10 October 2002 the applicant applied for a review of that decision.
The review was carried out by the Refugee Review Tribunal who interviewed the applicant. It came to its decision on 4 February 2003 and handed it down on 25 February 2003. The decision of the Tribunal was to affirm the original decision of the applicant. This is the third case of this type which I have heard today, in each case the applicants have completed an application form in the following manner:
“A. Details of Claim:
1. The decision made by RRT set aside (copy of decision attached).
I made application 39B Judiciary Act.
2. The decision made by RRT 4 February 2003 be set aside.
3. I received RRT file on 3 March 2003 (enclosed RRT file).
B.Claim for interlocutory Relief:
1. The decision made by the RRT on 4 February 2003 (enclosed RRT file).”
There is then an affidavit which in this case is in the following form.
“ I am a Malaysian citizen who arrived in Australia on 15 July 2002 at Perth airport. I lodged an application for protection visa on
7 August 2002 with Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs. The Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs refused my application on
19 September 2002. On 10 October 2002 I lodged the decision to be reviewed by RRT. The RRT made a decision on 4 February 2003. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. Received the decision by post on 3 March, 2003.”It will be clear that these documents reveal absolutely nothing in the way of a claim for judicial review of an administrative decision. The applicant appeared before a Registrar of this court who made the usual orders including an order for him to file an amended application and any additional evidence upon which he intended to rely on or before 30 June 2003. That was not done. The applicant appears to have been offered the opportunity to take advantage of the Minister's scheme but of course there is nothing on the file to indicate what advice he received.
When the applicant appeared before me today he appeared totally incapable of being able to indicate where the Tribunal erred in law in the manner in which it came to its conclusion. After discussion with me he readily accepted, indeed volunteered, that there was no legal error that he could identify. I think that the applicant's observations in this regard are astute.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that whilst it was possible that the applicant had been a member of the Parti Ke Adilan (Justice Party) which supported Anwar Ibrahim he was no longer a member and had not been politically active in Australia. The Tribunal was unable to accept that the applicant played a significant role in the youth wing of that party. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was on any wanted list of the Malaysian authorities.
At [CB 69] the Tribunal said:
“Despite the total lack of recent political activity on the basis of the country information it is possible that the applicant will face difficulty in the form of intimidation for reason of his political opinion or an imputed political opinion in Malaysia. If Malaysian authorities want to know more about the applicant's political activity they may well interview him again. Even if the applicant is questioned from time to time about politics I do not accept that this amounts to persecution in the sense of the Convention.”
Essentially the Tribunal's view was that the applicant had not satisfied it that any problems he had met or was likely to meet constituted serious harm within the meaning of s.91R(1) of the Act.
The decision of the Tribunal is clearly articulated. The information upon which it relies in relation to the situation in Malaysia is set out in detail. The views which it expresses upon the applicant's credibility and story generally are views which the Tribunal is entitled to come to. It does not find the applicant's story incredible but it does find that the story does not indicate a well founded fear of persecution for a convention reason as modified by s.91R of the Act.
The applicant cannot find any fault with the manner in which the Tribunal came to those conclusions, neither can I. I dismiss the application. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $4,250 pursuant to Part 21, Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrate's Court Rules.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0