SZAQC v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAQC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2004] FMCA 549

MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision – where Tribunal utilised country information to provide it with a background of the situation in Nepal – where applicant complains that the information did not relate to his personal circumstances – where Tribunal did not consider the applicant to be a credible witness – whether circumstances which applicant claims gives rise to a well-founded fear of persecution has the requisite convention nexus – whether the findings and reasons of the Tribunal evidence a denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error.

NARE v MIMIA [2003] FCA 554
NAZZ v The Minister [2004] FCA 278
Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407

Applicant: SZAQC

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ 870 of 2003

Delivered on: 13 August 2004

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 13 August 2004

Judgment of: Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: Applicant in Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Bromwich

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $4,750 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ 870 of 2003

SZAQC

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Nepal.  He arrived in Australia on 9 May 1998.  On 5 June 1998 he lodged an application for a protection (class AZ) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.  On 13 June 1998 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 9 July 1998 the applicant applied for a review of that decision.  The Tribunal offered the applicant an opportunity to be heard on his application, which he took, and on 20 April 2001 it determined to affirm the decision not to grant a protection visa.  That decision was handed down on 10 May 2001.  Two years and one month later on 20 May 2003 the applicant had still not been removed from Australia and was able to make an application to this court seeking review of the decision.

2. In his grounds for the application he stated:

   “I am not content with the RRT decision in my case concerning its use of the country study information.  It is quite inapplicable to the life and circumstances of a particular person such as myself and acting on it can result in injustice and tragedy.”

3. The applicant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution for the convention reason of political opinion.  He told the Tribunal that he had joined the United People’s Front at a young age and had undertaken work for them in spreading the communist message.  He also told the Tribunal, as he had told the delegate, that he had become involved in a fight with some police during the course of which a policeman had been killed.  He believed that…